The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Calculus. Redirect as an alternative to deletion. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calculus I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why the page should be deleted? This article documents a well-defined subject in academia. I am AfD-ing it (a page I created) at the suggestion of another user--Samantha9798 (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Calculus. The article starts "Calculus I is a math course in undergraduate education worldwide and is nearly identical to what is covered in AP Calculus. It typically covers a well-known subset of the topics of calculus, which is a branch of mathematics that deals with the finding and properties of derivatives and integrals of other functions" As a statement that is all well and the subject as an undergraduate module may be a notable topic but there is no indication of notability shown. However the rest of the article does not discuss the course at all and instead repeats mathematical content about Calculus found elsewhere on Wikipedia grouped on this page solely because they are the topics covered in the course. To understand if this is a notable study module it is not necessary to have the principles of various aspects of Calculus demonstrated here. By contrast the article on AP Calculus demonstrates why the course is notable and contains no mathematical content and if Calculus I is a notable topic that is the format it should follow. Nthep (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to fall back on Wikibooks or Wikiversity but what is the problem?--Samantha9798 (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question but this article is neither fish nor fowl and I really don't know what it is supposed to be about. If it's about a undergraduate maths module then it, currently, fails to establish the notability of the module and should be deleted for failing to show notability. If it's about principles of calculus then it repeats existing articles and should be deleted for duplication. I see that you started it as Draft:Introduction to calculus before putting the content into article space under the current title which suggests that your aim is to compile a set of course notes for students taking this module. That's a laudable aim but not what Wikipedia is about. Nthep (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must have mastery of any concept now at any cost to knowledge. I understand such.--Samantha9798 (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is equate this-or-that domain expert with a child molester. I understand usch.==Samantha9798 (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be very careful what you call someone. The one you refer to could easily (and successfully) call for your banning.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah , yeah. Godwin's law and all that.--Samantha9798 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to see less duplication and more support of notability. The text suggests this is a world wide standard of sorts but I don't see how. I hold off on a vote since the article is still being actively edited.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see nothing notable about this specific course. Allowing an article about a course of study without a clear indication of why that specific course is notable would open the door to countless shallow articles about every course in existence. — Anita5192 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a classic example of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the others and not a useful redirect either. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree wikipedia is WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There exists a notable course in the United States that is called "Calculus 1". However, a proper encyclopedia article on this course would have an entirely different set of objectives than the article in question. In particular, it would include a discussion of the history of the course (what did students in the 19th century do, for instance?) as well as global comparisons. The purpose of the article should not be to introduce the reader to the concepts of calculus, as that is already handled at other articles, and anyway WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. But I don't think there is really a lot of scaffolding for an article about a specific course in the history of mathematics pedagogy. An article Calculus education in the United States might be a more appropriate source for any content that is suitable for an encyclopedia. So, for the present, I'm inclined to vote delete, with the understanding that this article could possibly be saved if someone wants to put forth the effort. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Keeping this article would require refurbishing lots of the current text to bring it to encyclopedic standards, thereby duplicating existing material, inducing new work for merging these fragments into existing articles, because I see no generic content, which is worth an article of its own. Please, search for suitable bureaucratic reasoning to make up a legally effective office action. -Purgy (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Calculus. I originally created this page as a redirect back in 2012 for people who would search for the course. I would strongly oppose outright deleting the page, since I believe it is a plausible and useful redirect. @Anita5192, Shawn in Montreal, Dweller, PRehse, Sławomir Biały, and Purgy Purgatorio: I would request that you consider !voting to redirect instead of outright deletion, as the redirect was at least somewhat useful and redirects are cheap. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no objection to a redirect, for my part. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even when most humbly asked to consider voting for redirect, I'd still say that supporting the lack of creativity in finding names for some courses (by simply giving them a roman numeral) should not be honored by establishing redirects in Wikipedia leading from generic course names like XYZ III to topic names XYZ. -Purgy (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Calculus. And I created it. I recognize a WP:SNOWBALL when I see it. I already have already fallen back to v:Calculus I.--Samantha9798 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete; whether or not it's good as a standalone article, it's a worthwhile redirect, so the only good alternatives are keeping or reverting to an early version. No point in deleting it and then recreating it, and deleting it without recreating would be rather silly. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• TRANSWIKI Why NOT move this to WIKIVERSITY?!?!?!??!? Cheers. Michael Ten (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is already there: v:Calculus I. — Anita5192 (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Calculus. It's not an article about the course Calculus I itself, but about the subject Calculus. Note that the article creator seems to have withdrawn her objection to the deletion/redirect [1]. Meters (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, didn't notice the article creator's comment above, or I wouldn't have bothered with the diff. I'm not going to argue against a deletion, and I wouldn't want to see redirects for every class number used by various school. but "Calculus I" is a fairly common term that is used for beginner Calculus courses. Many schools give it a course number in their own system, but still label it as Calculus I. I'm sticking with redirect. Meters (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The fact that this is about a part of a conventional curriculum rather than about a subject within mathematics gives me pause. That there are other ways of organizing the curriculum without changing the essence of the subject matter is generally unknown to those who've only taken the conventional courses such as this, so I suspect the difference may go unnoticed by them. If this is kept, perhaps material should be added contrasting it with alternatives. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Q for those advocating redirect is a good option: Should we also create redirects for English 1, Math 1, Maths 1, French 1, and all of these with 2, 3 etc and even 101? If deleted, someone searching for Calculus 1 will find their way to Calclulus quite easily. Professor Calculus says "speak up, stop mumbling". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... humbly pointing you here, please note the time stamp also. :) -Purgy (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand the reason not to. I'd like someone who advocates for it to explain how far we should go and why it's a good thing to do so. Seems pointless and faintly ridiculous. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Calculus. Not enough significant discussion in sources to differentiate this aspect. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - highly useful to our core readership. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - even if kept this is now liable for speedy deletion under WP:A5 or WP:G5. Nthep (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not G5 since the original redirect was not created by the now-blocked sock (we've already undone one G5 deletion). I've never used A5 before, but that does seem applicable. Meters (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: For multiple reasons already stated above by many people. Stca74 (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.