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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future of mathematics[edit]

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

Delete This is original research and synthesis. There are references for individual parts of the article, but no evidence that the topic as a whole has been considered in this way before. Much of the article is clearly personal assessment. For example, the following sentence openings really cry out that the thing is a personal reflection or essay: "Another reason to consider where mathematics is going...", "Educators consider the future because they want...", "In order to get a handle on where mathematics is going, one needs to understand ...", etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article was previously speedy-tagged and later prodded. Speedy tag was removed by DGG with the edit summary "deletion reason not relevant" and no further explanation. Prod was removed by the author of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the speedy tag said "no content" and I did not and still do not think an explanation of why that was not the case was necessary.

Delete: looks like crystalballing to me, backed by primary sources. Alexius08 (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - pure fortunetelling - UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is NOT an essay, or personal reflection, or original research, or synthesis. It is an encyclopedic article describing what has been published about the future of mathematics. Regardless of what WP:Crystal says, the subject of the future of mathematics is notable, has been written about many times, and there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about it.

(For the record, I created the article with username:Futofma). Bethnim (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It hard to see that there is a single cohesive subject being talked about. It's more like a collection of various speculative comments from people in a bunch of different specialties. I'm not going to say 'delete' because I'm not convinced that it's impossible to have an article like this. But before any article with a title "Future of ..." is created it should be questioned whether there is any sort of agreement among experts as what trends will be. The author has at least given cites for many of the statements, but opinions of individual people are just that and don't belong in an encyclopedia, even if they are published.--RDBury (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject may be considered dubious (so many people are neophobes), but the fact that there exists citable work on the subject indicates that there is a worthwhile page to be included here. Exactly what its content is to be can evolve in the fullness of time like everything else, but IMO we should not delete. --Matt Westwood 10:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite to remove some rough edges. "Agenda-setting problem sets" is a valid and interesting subtopic; people trying to define subdisciplines of future mathematics is somewhat more problematic, because such speculations are hardly authoritative: but here we are evaluating the topic "future of mathematics", and I would say it is encyclopedic and supported by an adequate literature. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does seem to be a notable subject even if speculative. It is okay to write about other peoples speculations. Dmcq (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's OR and synthesis: there are lots of references but little that I can see on the future of mathematics. The future of particular topics – combinatorics for example – and education, but not of mathematics as a whole, except for some very old programmes. It's also poorly written: very unencyclopaedic language, lots of "so and so said" and quotes (with surely some copyright concerns) and then a section which omits content, just says "you can read about this here". Stripped of all this unencyclopaedic content and speculation I can't see anything worth keeping.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you object to the inclusion of particular topics then by the same rationale no Wikipedia article should discuss individual aspects of any subject but should only talk in vague terms about a subject as a whole. I don't think short quotes are a cause for copyright concern. As for omitting information that is only because I haven't gotten round to it - this article is a work in progress, like any Wikipedia article. Bethnim (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JohnBlackburne. One would like to predict the future of mathematics, but, in, say, 1980, one wouldn't have been able to predict the future of Fermat's last theorem and the 4-color problem. None of these people are experts in "the future of mathematics", so it's pretty much idle speculation, even from those who are expert in some vaguely relevant topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 4-color problem was solved in 1976, if I recall correctly. And since that's a red link, we need another redirect page. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course specific events will happen that weren't predicted. That's not the point. People routinely plan for the future. Prediction is about recognising and being prepared for possibilities. Bethnim (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider that people like Hilbert, Poincaré, Von Neumann and Weil have actually addressed the topic of the "future of mathematics", in prominent contributions that are well known in this subfield. In fact discussions of the future of mathematics seems to be a legitimate topic in the history of mathematics, if nowhere else. Hilbert was wrong about the future of logic, one might say, but exactly how and why is of genuine interest, and can be written about here based on legitimate references. The existing article is not that great, but AfD should really address whether there is a topic here valid for inclusion. Some of the points made above can be referenced themselves by a quote from Roger Godement, who said "To speak of the future of mathematics is an exercise in fantasy which cannot be discouraged too strongly" (mentioned in Jean-Michel Kantor, Hilbert's Problems and Their Sequels, Mathematical Intelligencer vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 21-30). In other words I think an article on this as a topic is fine; but properly it is not about prediction, it should be about what has been written about such predictions. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Alexius08. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rework and rename "Future of mathematics" is a bit too grand, but there is some ok material in the article, and a reasonably cohesive subject with some significance in education and some historical interest. Maybe "Research trend anticipation in mathematics" or something like that. It could even be in list format, or folded into an article about sociology of mathematics (using Thurston's "proof and progress" essay, Hersh's book "The Mathematical Experience" and so on). Arthur Rubin: I'm not sure what you mean about the 4-color theorem in 1980. It was proved in 1976, although there was debate about the proof method (massive computer enumeration), e.g. Tymoczko 1979. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If notable people engage in thinking about the further development of mathematics, apparently finding this a worthwhile topic, and their ideas are recorded in what we consider reliable sources, then it is entirely within the scope of Wikipedia to report on these ideas, just a we do for the topic Ultimate fate of the universe without invoking WP:CRYSTAL. The name and organization of the article may not be the most felicitous, but that is not a reason for deletion. --Lambiam 16:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that we have more than one editor arguing against deletion because WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here. However, WP:CRYSTAL was not one of the reasons given for deletion in the nomination. Nobody has given any answer to the reasons given there, apart from the author of the article saying that the article is not original research or synthesis, but not explaining or justifying that statement. Nothing that has been written above by those editors arguing for "keep" has in any way lessened the force of what is said in the nomination: various people at various times have spoken or written about what they have thought the future of mathematics may bring, but it is not sufficient that various people have said various different things and that they have been assembled together: that is syhtnesis. More than one editor above has said words to the effect "Several prominent mathematicians have speculated about the future of mathematics, so it must be a notable topic". However, this is not an article about "Hilbert's predictions about the future of mathematice" or "Poincaré's predictions about the future of mathematics", and nobody has put forward any evidence that the particular view of those predictions put forward in this article has received any prior coverage in reliable sources. In fact as far as I can see nobody has even claimed that that is so. Matt Westwood says that "there exists citable work". Yes, but the citations do not support this particular interpretation of how to fit together unrelated opinions of different mathematicians. Dmcq says "It is okay to write about other peoples speculations". Nobody has denied that, and that is not the point: the point is that the article is synthesis, with elements of original research, and, as I have said, nobody above has even made an attempt to show that it isn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many Wikipedia articles are more up-to-date and comprehensive than any single-source, so necessarily will have assembled information together that has never been in one place before. That is not synthesis or original research, and if you think it is then do you also think Derivative (generalizations) should be deleted because all that information has never been assembled elsewhere before ? Bethnim (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think what JamesBWatson is saying about the current content may be a fair point of view; but the presence, for example, of OR in an article is not by itself enough to justify a deletion (add ((fact)) and remove in time is the way). Applications of WP:SYNTH may often be met by quite light rewriting: it says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, and that can be avoided by not drawing such conclusions. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I was not suggesting that no Wikipedia article should contain information on a topic collected from different sources. I was saying that in this case the article consists of nothing but a collection of different ideas, but it attempts to present them as parts of a theme, whereas that theme is previously undocumented. If anyone can produce evidence that this theme has in fact received significant coverage in reliable sources then I shall be happy to change my mind on the question of deletion, but so far nobody has done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the book Mathematics Unlimited- 2001 and beyond satisfies your concerns. It is all about whither this, and what's next that, open problems, challenges, research directions, prospects for the 21st century, how to prepare students for the computer age, relationship of mathematics to society, mathematics and its applications. Also the book "Mathematics: frontiers and perspectives" which is about current perspectives on the future frequently refers back to Hilbert's problems. Bethnim (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The recent work Mathematics: frontiers and perspectives, produced under the auspices of the International Mathematical Union and written by several winners of the Fields Medal, demonstrates the continuing notability and merit of this topic. Bringing our article to a high standard is doubtless challenging but it is our editing policy to persevere. Deletion would not assist this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any such article is inherently speculative and uncertain, and therefore this is not an encyclopedic topic. That said, do try to preserve this material somewhere - I suspect the more recent stuff can be worked into appropriate articles as current developments and directiosn for research, and the bibliography appears to be a jewel. Ray^Talk 15:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I prodded a very early version of this article, which had little or no content. However, the article has improved hugely since then, and I am now unconvinced by the delete arguments given above. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply because the article is not itself making predictions - it is about notable attempts by mathematicians to predict the future of the subject. WP:SYNTH does not apply because the article does not try to "reach or imply a conclusion". There is good article emerging here about a particular genre of mathematical writing; I have tried to clarify this by rewriting its lead paragraph. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I think this article should be renamed to a more appropriate title. Limeisneom (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2010 (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.