Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subgroup test

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 Subgroup#Subgroup tests as an uncontested alternative to deletion. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subgroup test

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It makes more sense to have this content as part of the subgroup page, because there is simply not enough to justify a separate page, and readers would be more likely to find it by searching for subgroup than subgroup test. In fact, this content is already in the subgroup page, in the "Basic properties of subgroups" section, without the proof. (Whether the proof should be included there too could be discussed, but that is a separate question. I would argue no, that it would be like posting the solution to an undergraduate algebra homework problem on Wikipedia with too many trivial details, but I don't have a strong feeling about it.) Ebony Jackson (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ebony Jackson (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and i agree with them that the proof is not needed. This term seems to be used frequently in algebra courses (pre google search) so maybe a redirect to the subgroup article would be appropriate (possibly with a light restructuring of the latter to better target the redirect). jraimbau (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did the "light restructuring" at subgroup (I created a "Subgroup tests" section there) to facilitate a redirect. Ebony Jackson (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to subgroup per nom (which should have references to high-quality sources that includes proofs, but not a proof itself because Wikipedia is not a textbook). --JBL (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable, independent sources were added. For these highly logical and rationally-based subjects, such as arithmetics and mathematics, there must be strong/credible references to ensure no misinformation or misleading information is being provided. Multi7001 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator. I have also added a citation to the new section in the main article to address any concerns. Felix QW (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2022 (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.