Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Digital Mathematics Library

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global Digital Mathematics Library[edit]

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

I believe that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. From what I can tell from http://www.mathunion.org/ceic/wdml/ the library is a goal but doesn't yet exist. A working group has been established but until they produce or launch something tangible its TOOSOON Gbawden (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This indeed a work in progress, albeit a very important one. A three-day meeting, attended by what was characterized in the announcement as "a small and select group of experts" (about 40), was held last week at the Fields Institute in Toronto with the goal of making progress towards such a library.

The main question was how mathematical knowledge should be represented in such a library. The main obstacle is that there are already a number of well-tested languages that are arguably suitable for this purpose, but it is not obvious how to fit them all to a common semantic framework.

The importance of this goal, and the significant amount of effort being made towards it, should hopefully counterbalance the absence to date of a single central library. It's an extremely interesting problem, otherwise Ingrid Daubechies (who is not herself a semantics person) would not be paying it this much attention. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and review in a couple of months time. This could easily be very notable. WP:RAPID If no change (significant improvement) in a couple of months then speedy delete then. Aoziwe (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mainspace for a while for some development and then allowing speedy deletion without AFD-type full discussion sounds bad... Or it sounds like a good plan if you want to cause future anger, frustration, conflict, etc. :( --do ncr am 22:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Still getting back used to wiki protocols after a seven year absence. My main point was that I think it should be given a second chance for a while. Aoziwe (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, or delete. Can redirect to a mention in another article on the general problem, probably Digital curation. I will add mention there. In this article there is no real content, ie there is nothing to merge. The topic of digital curation, or wikipedia's article, seems largely oriented to the problem of librarians staying employed, but also allows for specialist groups of non-librarians to make material useful, which is apparently the goal for this potential project. Focus on the challenge and potential. If a paragraph or stub article is focused on the nonexistent "library" then it is like a movie that is in early development, might not happen, and is TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article. Also, Wikipedia is not a place to post announcements or to provide links to members of a committee, task forces, or club. A person's name should be included in an encyclopedia article only if they are extraordinarily involved in a way that is clearly explained, in general. --do ncr am 22:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the article needs to be improved. Especially what happend since CICM2014 needs to be described. For example the DRMF Project http://drmf.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page and the role of Wikidata, are in that GDML are not discussed. --Physikerwelt (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see this article as being about an important open problem at the boundary of mathematics and knowledge engineering. The problem is currently best identified under the name of its desired solution, namely a global digital mathematics library. The workshop held February 3-5 this year at the Fields Institute, now mentioned in the article, gave a good idea of how difficult it will be for stakeholders such as Wolfram Research, Maplesoft, Mathworks, etc. to agree on a common semantic framework for such a library. What justifies having a Wikipedia article about what might seem at first sight like just another digital library is the importance of having a globally accepted semantic representation language for mathematical knowledge. This makes it a bit like one of the Clay Prize problems but with the answer being a language instead of yes or no. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2016 (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.