Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connes connection

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 merge‎ to Noncommutative geometry and/or Alain Connes. Consensus to merge the article was clear, where to merge it less so, but that doesn't have to be decided at AfD. – Joe (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Connes connection

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Contested draftification. Returned without improvement. The JAMS article is a good source, but the other two are primary. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The notability seems clear, mainly because A Connes is a very prominent mathematician and thus what he touches more or less is always notable. This seems to be the case the notability gets inherited. The Cuntz and Quillen reference is certainly a secondary source. I have also just added one. It seems there are enough refernces for me (but I am sure more can be added if necessary). In any case, I don’t see a need for the deletion. —- Taku (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Connes connection might be possible to merge into Noncommutative geometry. --SilverMatsu (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The noncommutative geometry article is about a general topic and so the detailed discussion of connections would be too distracting. It makes sense to isolate technical stuff from a general article. —- Taku (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's too distracting, it is possible that create the Connection (noncommutative geometry) by splitting it from the noncommutative geometry and include "the connection in the sense of Connes" in that article. By the way, wikipedia has a Connection (algebraic framework). --SilverMatsu (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know about Connection (algebraic framework). The article is mainly about the commutative case although it has a section that discusses Connes connections in the simplest case (without a reference to cyclic homology). I don't think that article is a good place to discuss a connections in noncommutative geometry, though (quite distracting to those who are interested in the commutative case). -- Taku (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to noncommutative geometry. This notion might well be notable (though that does not seem at all obvious to me) but in any case there is currently no content in the article so until someone cares to add some it might as well be a one-line mention+references in that article. jraimbau (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a stub so obviously the assumption it can be developed further. In fact, I have just added definition. -- Taku (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this makes much of a difference from before, it's just a formal definition without context. Keeping the stub might be useful if there was some substantial content, but as there is a natural target for a redirect which in addition provides a better context, this seems like a much better option. jraimbau (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are more substantial stuff that can be added. I don't think the redirect is actually useful: someone is interested in the definition of a Connes connection cannot find it there (and like said above, I don't think it's a good idea to add such materials to a overview article). Keeping the stub is useful to add more substantial stuff later, since such stuff is inappropriate in the noncommutative geo article. -- Taku (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be a bad idea to add the briefest content about this extremely niche notion to the more general article, instead of keeping an essentially empty stub? jraimbau (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, my apology for a late reply (was busy in real life). To answer, as I said above, the materials look rather technical. The references cited in the stub have some discussion of, for example, relation to projective modules. That type of materials looks quite out of place to put in the non-commutative geo article. Just because some articles are short, that doesn’t mean the short articles should be merged into some longer articles. It’s like some small niche battle should not be discussed in the history of Japan article, while that battle itself may be sufficiently notable for it to have a Wikipedia article. —- Taku (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stub articles serve as seeds from which new articles can grow. The growth that occurs is more natural, and leads to better articles, than trying to take one giant article, and splitting it into pieces. How do I know? Once upon a time, more than ten years ago, I made the mistake of splitting a good, but much too long article on projective geometry. It seemed like a good idea, but I am ashamed of the result to this day. It was butchery. The elegant flow and coherent development was converted into factoid pieces-parts, sterile flotsam and jetsam of mathematics. Stubs are seeds. Plant them. Let them grow. It might take a decade or two. That's OK. I've been here for 18 years. Taku has been here almost that long. Don't let WP turn into an old-growth forest, stately and majestic, but with nothing new growing. It's all good. It will work out in the end.

(Oh, full disclosure, as I am posting as an anon: I've created and edited a dozen or two articles about the more basic aspects of connections. This includes revising and expanding articles created by Taku. Although this article might seem "specialized", I don't see non-commutative geometry going away or being sidelined. It's been growing for decades, and will continue to.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Alain Connes. // Timothy :: talk 12:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What merge target is best?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, don't merge, for reasons given above. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Guerillero - looking at the options, the best merge target would be Alain Connes.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: I think the notion of Connes connection meets the WP:GNG, but I wonder if it is common to call it a Connes connection (WP:COMMONNAME). So, that's why I call this notion: "connection in the sense of Connes", also I think that's why jraimbau says who needs to add some context. Next, I think that Taku is saying that since Connes is a very prominent mathematician, so it's okay to call this notion a Connes connection. So, I don't think the merge target for this article is Alain Connes.--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that regarding a merge target the best one would be noncommutative geometry (i think notability of the concept is at least unclear in the present form of the article). jraimbau (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to noncommutative geometry. I think this article provides the best context for the text. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:35, 5 May 2023 (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.