Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canon Sinuum (Pitiscus)


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) st170e talk 19:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Canon Sinuum (Pitiscus)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The single reference is not enough to pass WP:GNG. The article was previously deprodded by Schwilgue and tagged for notability by Bradv. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: There are certainly sources for an article on Pitiscus' Thesaurus mathematicus, any particular reason for the article title Canon Sinuum (Pitiscus), ? Sam Sailor Talk! 17:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There was some move-warring earlier this year over whether Bürgi's Canon Sinuum needed a disambiguator in its title. I suspect the choice to create this article under this title (instead of a more general article under the title Thesaurus Mathematicus) may have been fallout from that disagreement. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep very obviously, as notability is verifiable through references to sources from the last 400 years that are easily found and cited, e.g.
 * I'm not a big fan of page moves during AfD debates, so we still have the article at Canon Sinuum (Pitiscus). Although this part of the work maybe is that which gets talked most about, it would makes sense IMHO to move the article to Thesaurus mathematicus. Thoughts?
 * This nomination for deletion, despite sources being available, with the argument is a sad disregard of due diligence and should remind taggers that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Mentioning that it was previously PRODed and de-PRODed, as well as previously tagged by another user with notability, does that serve anything but to testify a tripling up on lazy WP:DRIVEBY-tagging? Sam Sailor Talk! 07:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of page moves during AfD debates, so we still have the article at Canon Sinuum (Pitiscus). Although this part of the work maybe is that which gets talked most about, it would makes sense IMHO to move the article to Thesaurus mathematicus. Thoughts?
 * This nomination for deletion, despite sources being available, with the argument is a sad disregard of due diligence and should remind taggers that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Mentioning that it was previously PRODed and de-PRODed, as well as previously tagged by another user with notability, does that serve anything but to testify a tripling up on lazy WP:DRIVEBY-tagging? Sam Sailor Talk! 07:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of page moves during AfD debates, so we still have the article at Canon Sinuum (Pitiscus). Although this part of the work maybe is that which gets talked most about, it would makes sense IMHO to move the article to Thesaurus mathematicus. Thoughts?
 * This nomination for deletion, despite sources being available, with the argument is a sad disregard of due diligence and should remind taggers that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Mentioning that it was previously PRODed and de-PRODed, as well as previously tagged by another user with notability, does that serve anything but to testify a tripling up on lazy WP:DRIVEBY-tagging? Sam Sailor Talk! 07:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This nomination for deletion, despite sources being available, with the argument is a sad disregard of due diligence and should remind taggers that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Mentioning that it was previously PRODed and de-PRODed, as well as previously tagged by another user with notability, does that serve anything but to testify a tripling up on lazy WP:DRIVEBY-tagging? Sam Sailor Talk! 07:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as I essentially see several of these subjects are notable and I would've especially kept it had I reviewed or otherwise encountered it, convincing enough. SwisterTwister   talk  19:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.