Talk:Horn-satisfiability

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

This article was listed on votes for deletion; see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Horn-satisfiability. —No-One Jones]] 21:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can see why a previous version of this was listed on cleanup, but the VfD listing is astounding, and some of the comments surrounding it require a response I think. I deliberately won't name names, they are all there in the history for the curious.

The idea of Wikipedia is that we will move towards having the sum of all our knowledge collected together. That begs the question of what knowledge might be. But it's the sum, surely we are agreed on that. The fact that one of us doesn't have knowledge in a particular field isn't a reason for deleting all the articles in that field, just the opposite.

This is why VfD votes based on single-word curses such as fancruft are so destructive. They encourage listings such as this one. Where will they end?

That's not to say that every minute detail of every subject needs to have an article of its own. There are clear Wikipedia policies (yes there are some clear ones!) on dictionary definitions, for example. But listing or voting to delete an article should represent a bit more research than the simple knee-jerk I don't think I'd ever find this useful. Someone else may. Food for thought?

I think that this article could now be removed from cleanup. Any other thoughts on this? Andrewa 17:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)