Talk:Tau (proposed mathematical constant)

Any Redditors here?
For Pi Day this year, UC Berkeley arranged for one of their high-profile professors, astrophysicist Alexei Filippenko to do an AMA. Guess what the top-voted question/comment was. (325 upboats) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. The purpose of the post was obviously to show evidence of people's interest in tau. Not simply shooting the breeze with fellow Redditors.
 * 2. This is a personal subpage of Tazerdadog, so invoking WP:NOTFORUM seems even less called for.
 * --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Make the article broader
In my opinion, "Tau (mathematical constant)" is not notable unless it has made its way into publications in mathematics. I'd suggest creating an article circle constant instead, which could contrast the standard circle constant π with other proposals/possibilities such as 2π (computed by Jamshīd al-Kāshī to 9 sexagesimal digits in 1424, see approximations of pi), and π/2 (proposed by Albert Eagle in 1958, see pi)) including any available historic references. It would be of particular interest to scrutinize references prior to 1706, i.e. when the symbol π was first used to represent the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, regarding whether they imply a value for the ratio circumference to diameter of a circle or actually something else. Isheden (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia history
Unlike most drafts, whenever this article is considered potentially ready for mainspace, it will require a fairly large consensus to do so, because it was removed from mainspace via WP:AfD (although not under this name). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Looking at the history it is virtually unchanged from 15 months ago when it was last discussed: see for that discussion which has links to previous discussions. So it is not a typical draft of a new article on a new topic. Rather consensus has already been achieved on its notability as a standalone article, and this consensus should not be overturned without a similar substantial discussion.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. My idea was not to make an end-run around discussion, but rather to put the draft in the namespace where I felt it was appropriate.  I am sorry if anyone else got the wrong impression. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)