Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abel function

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 Abel equation. Tone 23:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abel function

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

A bevy of WP articles, including Abel equation, Schröder's equation, Böttcher's equation etc... cover this exact material. There is no thinkable excuse for sending readers to this meaningless blurb. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to one of the above-mentioned articles. I don't know enough about math to say which. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abel equation. I would suggest a slight merge, but what is written at the current Abel function article is very hard to comprehend, and I don't think the article Abel's equation would in any way be improved by a merger in its current form. If someone wants to sort it out and hopefully track down references for what is apparently a generalization of the usual equation, then please feel free to do so. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated, all the material is already present, in more readable form, in Abel equation and its brothers, except for the turgid contradistinction to the off-mainstream "superfunction", to which it could serve as a hapless footnote, in the best of worlds. Right now, it is definitely counterproductive, as, in practice, it hogs the title "Abel function" ---which really, really, should redirect to Abel equation and not to this indefensible stub. A confused reader trawls WP to find why the Abel function diverges at fixed points and ends up in this stub? Good luck. I think deletion is the only solution, and then instant recycling of the name to redirect to Abel equation.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abel's equation. Ebony Jackson (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Following consensus, I repurposed/retrofitted the page to a Redirect to Abel equation, and took down the original citizendium porting template from its Talk page, but left this discussion intact for an administratively adept person to terminate and close the book on. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus until an uninvolved editor closes this AfD. Please revert your changes; blanking the article and removing the AfD tag while the article is under consideration is specifically not allowed while the AfD is in progress and is considered disruptive. See WP:CLOSEAFD for details. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my ignorance of procedure. Restored page as advised. This terminates my involvement in this business and I will not touch that page, its talkpage, and the AfD stuff ever again. They are off my watchlist, and I should be off their map. Please do 'not message me on such. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the page. I know the redirect was done in good faith; I made a similar mistake some months ago, jumping the gun on a merge before the AfD was closed. Cheers, --Mark viking (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2013 (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.