Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convex tiling

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Convex tiling (Karl Scherer)
This is an articles, which on careful examination appears to have been created by User:Karlscherer3 contribs, who uses IPs
 * 202.37.72.100, and
 * 210.55.230.17, and
 * 210.55.230.18, and
 * 210.55.230.20, and
 * 213.157.5.222, and
 * 219.89.37.58, and
 * 222.152.25.248.

This is a non-standard (i.e. original research) categorisation of a class of tesselation.

Although the history includes many other editors, careful examination reveals that they mostly performed copyediting rather than adding content (except for a picture or two of a puzzle that fits the definition in the text).

It should be noted that over 100 articles (about 200 including images) created by Karlscherer3 were deleted simultaneously in a single VfD, by a 90% majority (see Votes for deletion/Zillions games). There is also a current VfD at Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer concerning an additional 8. The only reason this was not included amongst them was because I had failed to previously notice them. 3 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)

Note how in the history it credits Karl Scherer with discoveries in this field, despite it being Karl Scherer who added this content - i.e. original research/vanity.

The term "convex tiling" is not appropriate in the context of tessellations, since it would mathematically be more accurately termed planar tessellation. The term cannot be found in any standard maths textbook, or on google for that matter. The phrase hardly even makes sense; it apparently applies to a tiling of a convex area, not a tiling using convex polygons.

A lot of the text seems to come from here, which is original research, at best.

[text of above intro by User:-Ril-, but containing comments from elsewhere by User:HorsePunchKid, and User:Blotwell ]


 * Delete     5 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)
 * Delete duplication and vandalism. Nuff said (note: I'm speaking of the original versions, which no longer appear, but since the person who edited the page into its current form is requesting deleltion, I don't feel I need to take those edits into account). -Harmil 5 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)
 * The article looked like this before I made any edits to it. N.b. most of the linked articles and images in it were VfD'd.      5 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the article is deleted, I think that the (rather poor quality) images that used to be in it should be deleted as well (as they will not be used anywhere else, nor likely to be).
 * Of these images, the following still exist
 * Image:convex_tiling_2_3_solutions1.gif
 * Image:convex_tiling_1-2_solutions1.gif
 * Image:convex_tiling_1-3_solutions1.gif
 * Image:convex_tiling_2-3_solutions1.gif
 * Image:convex_tiling_2-4_solutions1.gif
 * Image:convex_tiling_4-6_solutions1.gif
 * Image:convex_tiling_1-2-3_solutions1.gif
 * Image:convex_tiling_1-2-4_solutions1.gif
 * Image:convex_tiling_1-2-4_solutions2.gif
 * Image:convex_tiling_2-3-4_solutions1.gif
 * Image:convex_tiling_1-2-3-4_solutions1.gif
 * Image:convex_tiling_1-2-4-6_solutions1.gif
 * Image:convex_tiling_1-2-4-6_solutions2.gif
 * Image:convex_tiling_1-2-3-4-16_solutions1.gif
 * Image:convex_tiling_N-1_solutions1.gif
 * 5 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although I don't believe every single article related to Mr. Scherer and his associates should go as has basically been proposed, it does appear that this is one of the ones that should, as original research.  Dcarrano July 5, 2005 22:46 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research / bogus content. Tobycat 6 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)
 * Delete, and I believe this guy has reached RFC level now because he's created far too many deletable articles. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 6, 2005 13:45 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonnotable.  As a point of precedent, though:  since you have a reference for it which principally credits other people than Scherer, it's not strictly original research, but it is vanity. &mdash;Blotwell 7 July 2005 03:48 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.