Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quintation

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 22:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Quintation

An operation with no real-world uses. Is now 2 months old, but has not been updated since it was just one day old. Is this article useful in any real way?? Georgia guy 00:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, with possible Merge of a sentence or two. Something about "the idea of quintation" might fit into the hyper operators article, but quintation itself (having only a few non-trivial cases) doesn't need an article. Philthecow 00:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep -- a lot of mathematics (especially a lot of the work done by the Bourbaki group) stands on its own with no real relation to the real world. Haikupoet 00:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 07:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As with Binilnilium, this kind of operation could basically be extended forever. It should correctly be named Pentation though (quint = Latin, penta = Greek, and since tetration = Greek...) Google indicates that the term Quintation is in fact more commonly used in music. Since the content is already present at Hyper operator (which lists the entire class thereof), this text should be deleted and changed to a redirect to whatever the musical term is relevant to. Radiant _* 10:09, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This operation is not used in the mathematical literature (or anywhere else as far as I know) and the article gives no information beyond the obvious. Jitse Niesen 12:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, interesting article. Grue 20:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete under the heading of totally irrelevant mathematics. Denni ☯ 01:23, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
keep. Draw the line at heptation maybe. Kappa 02:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Why the arbitrary distinction? I could write an equally interesting article on ikosatation. Radiant_* 09:18, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  - Because we need an arbitrary distinction. 2 of these isn't really enough, but 20 would be overkill. Kappa 19:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, the proper term is pentation not quintation. Given Wikipedia's policy regarding not adding non-peer reviewed material and that no peer reviewed material exists, this page shouldn't exist. If Wikipedia wants to change this policy then I'd be happy to add non-peer reviewed material. I'm giving a talk next month where I will discuss how to define pentation for complex numbers, so if folks want to read non-peer reviewed material, I can help you out, but I don't think it would be a good idea. Daniel Geisler 08:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep (or move to pentation, or whatever). Find citations, I'm sure they are out there. "Pure mathematics. May it never be of use to anyone." -- Jmabel | Talk 00:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I am equally sure there are no references. Not only because I didn't find any in the databases of maths publications that I looked at, but also because Daniel Geisler says so above and he has done research on tetration. However, I am happy to change my vote to "keep" if you can find a reference. -- Jitse Niesen 12:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Jonathunder 03:35, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Hyper operator. And make pentation a redirect, too. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but perhaps expand Hyper operator. Redirect pentation/quintation and other such higher operators there. -- DocSigma 20:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.