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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bézout method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This paper is entirely based on a single primary source. This source is more than 250 years old, but no secondary source is given. The name of the method is not sourced. This method for solving equations seems to have not be considered in recent literature, probably because the method of Lagrange resolvent is more useful. Thus the method and its name are not notable enough for belonging to WP.

Moreover, a member-to-member-products method for elimination is used without explanation nor reference. The details of this elimination method does not deserve to be described, as being an inelegant way for computing a resultant. However, Bézout's elimination method is still considered in modern mathematics and is the subject of the article Bezoutian, which seems to be ignored by the author of the article. D.Lazard (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello D.Lazard, I translated it from the French article, and I think it could be developed as a part of history of mathimatics. Thanks. --Dr-Taher (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The French article is not better than its translation. It has never been evaluated: I have just evaluated it as a stub of low importance, and its content has never been discussed on the talk page. D.Lazard (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Developing this article as a part of history of mathematics would be original research, and does not belong to Wikipedia. Moreover, this would make sense only if it is compared with other methods of the same period, and with the modern approaches of the subject, whiles not even sketched. By the way, I'll explain my concerns in the talk page of the article. D.Lazard (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lagrange's paper on the subject has been written 6 years later. It is a dramatic improvement of Bézout's method, and this explains the weakness of the impact of Bézout's method on the theory of equations. Thus, Bézout's method does not deserve more than a mention in a complete article (still to be written) on Lagrange resolvents. D.Lazard (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that this seems to be a context-free, primary sourced, unduly expansive treatment. I can't suggest a merge target, but would strongly advocate merging into a wider topic if one can be found. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a journal nor a depository of scientific papers. The contested article represents an unfortunate trend toward precisely such a direction. -The Gnome (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2018 (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.