Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:0.999.../Arguments/FAQ

Not of any useful history and redundant to Talk:0.999.../FAQ; any content left here should be merged there. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)reply

• Speedy keep. These are two different FAQs, with two different purposes. The "redundant" claim is a little baffling since the questions are entirely different. 28bytes (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)reply
  • They look pretty similar to me. "The initial proofs don't seem formal and the later proofs don't seem understandable. Are you sure you proved this? I'm an intelligent person, but this doesn't seem right"(Talk:0.999.../FAQ) vs. "Q: Person X made a pretty convincing argument that 0.999... ≠ 1! Those who say otherwise are giving arguments I can't understand"(Talk:0.999.../Arguments/FAQ) sound like the same question. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)reply
    • Then perhaps taking a look at the answers would clear up the confusion. 28bytes (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)reply
• Keep - The (v.1) Arguments/FAQ page has a utility to the editors of the 0.999... page in maintaining their FA encyclopedic work. Long version: For the talk page of the Wikipedia article related to the repeating decimal 0.999..., there is a system of sub talkpages. There's (i) the Archives 1-15, which is fine and (ii) archivelist and (iii) Archive index, both of which support a somewhat complex talk page archiving system that uses User:MiszaBot, auto archiving notice, User:HBC Archive Indexerbot, and archives. That seems fine, too. The other subpages either are (iv) FAQs or (v) Argument subpages. Apparently, the 0.999... article attracts math hotshots from around the globe who have a burning desire to discuss their personal views on the repeating decimal 0.999... Many come with the same burning questions (basically, why doesn't the article have my views about the repeating decimal 0.999...?) The (iv) FAQ subpage provide readied answers that are transcluded right into the article talk page header. Subpage (iv) FAQs seems like a reasonable way to control the article talk page, so that is fine. That leaves the (v) Argument subpages and its own subpage, (v.1) Arguments/FAQ, with is now at the MfD. (intentional line break)
  The article talk page is for discussing changes to the 0.999... article itself. Help:Using talk pages permits sub pages of the article talk page to be used to discuss particular topics that generate a disproportionate amount of traffic about the 0.999... article itself. This is where the trouble begins. The (v) Argument subpages are not to discuss the 0.999... article itself; rather, they operate as social pages to deal with 0.999 math gun slingers who come to town to intellectually challenge the fastest guns in town (e.g., the Wikipedians who brought the article to FA status). On 7 May 2007 and 7 April 2009, the Arguments subpages were kept at MfD because of their utility to the editors of the 0.999... page in maintaining their FA encyclopedic work. (v.1) Arguments/FAQ has that same utility. Comment: The (v) Argument subpages should be moved from being subpages of an article talk page. While their utility justifies keeping them, they are not justified as sub talk page because the (v) Argument subpages are not to discuss the 0.999... article itself. I would support a move of the (v) Argument subpages to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics if someone to propose it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)reply
• Keep as per Uzma. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:32, 23 November 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.