Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dao six-point circle


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 20:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Dao six-point circle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are no reliable sources for this concept. Google search returns 0 hits for "Dao six points circle" ([), and only 2 hits for "DAO 6-POINT CIRCLE". [[User:Vanjagenije|Vanjagenije]] (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightcirclestheorem (talk • contribs) 10:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. as per WP:NOR, may be it is original research because no independent published source for this Triangle are found. A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 11:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am curious, do you, not consider Clark Kimberling's publication to be independent of "Cut the Knot"? Of course they all have to be based on the work of Dao Thanh Oai, as he is the one who discovered it. --Bejnar (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably original research, but we might find ourselves reinstating the article after a refereed publication presents this material. You can't say that about most original research posted to Wikipedia. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Or maybe this is NOT "original research". A moderately long discussion of the merits and demerits of this article is underway on this page, and the point is being made that the Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers is considered by mathematicians to be a reliable source, so that its appearance there is the "original research" and its appearance here, citing that, is not. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Should replace "Dao six-point circle" by "Dao six point circle"

I edited minor, and reference from two reliable sources, Please click: Cut-the-knot, Dao's Six Point Circle http://www.cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/CirclesTangentToMedians.shtml and please click: http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/encyclopedia/ETCPart4.html on item X(5569) = CENTER OF THE DAO 6-POINT CIRCLE, but I think should call named the article is : "Dao six point circle", Other word: Should replace "Center of the Dao six points circle (triangle)" by "Dao six point circle"


 * Two reliable sources

I think Kimberling center is reliable sources, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Triangle_Centers and http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KimberlingCenter.html

Example: Mathworld using only for Kimberling center for Moses circle, please see: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MosesCircle.html

I think cut the knot also is reliable sources, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-the-Knot

Dear Mister Vanjagenije and every body
 * Google search returns

Thank to you very much, Now, there are two reliable sources for this concept, Google search returns 1 hits for "Dao six point circle" on http://www.cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/CirclesTangentToMedians.shtml, and 1 hits for "DAO 6-POINT CIRCLE" on http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/encyclopedia/ETCPart4.html
 * Weak delete. The Kimberling/ETC reference is reliable for this sort of thing, but (like e.g. OEIS for integer sequences) not very selective: they will take pretty much anything that fits the definition of a triangle center and is correctly defined. So while I think that's enough to inoculate this against the charge of being OR, I don't think it counts for very much towards notability, and I don't think we want to replicate ETC by including articles on all 6000 or however many triangle centers they list. There seems to be nothing about this in the published mathematics literature; if there were I would find that more convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder to what extent the mere fact that this involves a six-point circle might be considered as making it notable? To define a set of six points in a way that doesn't deliberately make them concyclic, and then to discover that --- lo and behold --- they are concyclic, seems like a substantial thing. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear David Eppstein,

Thank to You very much,you said true. In ETC has about 6000 triangle center, but has a few triangle centers named in honor of notability. Special, circles of triangle it honor of notability is very litte. I think, circles in triangle are very little. Example: Incircle and excircles of a triangle, circumcircle, Nine point circle, van Lamoen circle, Parry circle, Lester circle, Lemoine circle, Evan circle....

But now the proof of Dao six-point circle online in Cut the knot and some forum, and publish in Kimberling center, I think maybe has no magazine re-publish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightcirclestheorem (talk • contribs) 07:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This article may be too technical for most readers to understand


 * Let $$A_c $$ be the center of the circle through $$ A $$ and tangent to the C-median, define $$A_b,B_a,B_c,C_a,C_b$$ cyclically. Let $$S_{ABC}$$ = area of $$ \triangle ABC$$, $$ r $$= radius of the Dao six point circle, and $$ \omega $$ = Brocard angle of ABC. Let $$m_a,m_b,m_c $$ are lengths of the medians of the triangle $$ \triangle ABC$$, $$a,b,c $$ are lengths of the sidelines $$  BC,CA,AB $$ respectively, $$ X $$ is the center of the Dao six point circle. Has somes properties following:


 * $$ r =\frac{ m_am_bm_c\sqrt{b^2c^2 + c^2a^2 + a^2b^2}}{342S_{ABC}^2}$$ is the calculation formula of the radius(lengths of radius) of the Dao six point circle, where $$m_a,m_b,m_c $$ are lengths of the medians(Median (geometry))of the triangle $$ \triangle ABC$$, $$a,b,c $$ are lengths of the sidelines $$ BC,CA,AB $$ respectively. And $$S_{ABC}$$ = area of $$ \triangle ABC$$


 * $$ |A_bB_a| = |B_cC_b| = |C_aA_c| =\frac{ 2m_am_bm_c}{9S_{ABC}}$$ is lengths of two point $$ A_b $$ to $$B_a$$, or $$ B_c $$ to $$C_b$$ or $$ A_c $$ to $$C_a$$(lengths of three segments: $$ |A_bB_a|,|B_cC_b|,|C_aA_c|$$)


 * $$ \angle A_bXB_a = \angle B_cXC_a = \angle C_aXA_c =\tan^{-1}\frac{a^2 + b^2 + c^2}{4S_{ABC}}$$ is the calculation formula angle $$ \angle A_bXB_a, \angle B_cXC_a, \angle C_aXA_c $$


 * $$ \angle A_bB_aX = \angle B_cC_bX = \angle C_aA_cX = \frac{\pi}{2}- \omega $$ is the calculation formula angle $$ \angle A_bB_aX, \angle B_cC_bX , \angle C_aA_cX $$ where  $$ \omega $$ = Brocard angle of ABC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightcirclestheorem (talk • contribs) 08:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * weak delete. It seems to me that this subject is still below the threshold of notability required for inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia. Although we do not have guidelines specific to concepts in geometry, we do have a notability guideline for numbers demanding that the subject of the article should also be the subject of a book chapter or journal article. It seems like this article should be held to the same standard.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why Bevan circle appear in Mathworld, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BevanCircle.html (no article for Bevan circle) but Dao six point circle can not appear in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightcirclestheorem (talk • contribs) 15:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with Slawomir Bialy and David Eppstein that this simply is not sufficiently notable for its own article. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Of-course, due to lack of the independent sources and the importance, it doesn't have achieved any good coverage or any scientific attention. Its just like a general information of Geometrical topic and is not suitable for an alone article at the moment. A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 17:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * delete' as not notable. I don't see any source that satisfies our sourcing requirements. It could be it's just too soon, and in a few months or years it will be picked up and covered in depth by more reliable sources, but for now delete.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 22.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 19:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 22.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 20:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 *  ETC is the reliable sources:  please click http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KimberlingCenter.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Triangle_Centers, and all most article(about triangle) in Magazine Forum geometricorum and many another forum geometry reference from Kimberling center(Example please read the article in http://forumgeom.fau.edu/)


 *  Dao six point circle is nice as the van Lamoen circle, please click http://mathworld.wolfram.com/vanLamoenCircle.html --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I commented above, asking a question. It has been answered by others. This has received significant attention as per topic, and meets WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the only attention this has received are a single entry in the ETC and a discussion at Cut-the-knot. Is that what you mean when you say "significant attention", or are there some other sources you are able to glean from this discussion?   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * One entry, or more entries, one article or more articles is also not important. I think, important is the Dao six-point circle is the special new and nice circle of a triangle.--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There are 3 triangle centers are center of the circle in 840 triangle centers

Dear David Eppstein and Sławomir Biały and Friends


 * David Eppstein wrote: "The Kimberling/ETC reference is reliable for this sort of thing, but (like e.g. OEIS for integer sequences) not very selective: they will take pretty much anything that fits the definition of a triangle center and is correctly defined. So while I think that's enough to inoculate this against the charge of being OR, I don't think it counts for very much towards notability, and I don't think we want to replicate ETC by including articles on all 6000 or however many triangle centers they list. There seems to be nothing about this in the published mathematics literature; if there were I would find that more convincing."


 * Sławomir Biały wrote: "It seems to me that this subject is still below the threshold of notability required for inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia. Although we do not have guidelines specific to concepts in geometry, we do have a notability guideline for numbers demanding that the subject of the article should also be the subject of a book chapter or journal article. It seems like this article should be held to the same standard."


 * Keep I have just cheked ENCYCLOPEDIA OF TRIANGLE CENTERS part 4 http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/encyclopedia/ETCPart4.html, In 840 triangle centers, Using Ctrl+F search returns 52 (--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)) hits for "the circle", And has only 3 triangle centers wich center of the circle(named after who discovered). So should keep Dao six-point circle --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not question that the subject appears in the Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers (ETC), nor obviously does David. The point is that this does not rise to the level of notability required for an encyclopedia article.  As David points out, membership in the OEIS is not prima facie evidence of notability of an integer sequence; neither should membership in the ETC be prima facie evidence of notability of a triangle center.  I don't see how repeating uncontested information here can rebut these votes.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Has than ten articles for Lester circle, Lester circle also is the circle in a triangle. There are above ten article for van Lamoen circle, van Lamoen circle also is the circle in a triangle. Ten articles and more article then true to true(not new). If Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers (ETC) is reliable sources, then Dao six-point circle the new and nice circle in a triangle. Why you want delete it? If you said, it is not special? no, it is special. In 840 triangles center of ETC, part 4, there are only 3 circles named after who discovered!!! I think 840 item in part 4 of ETC have many many information as 4 books. --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We have guidelines on notability in this project. Being "special" or "new" are irrelevant, and no one has commented on their newness and specialness besides you.  Whether the ETC named it after somebody is also irrelevant.  I also don't understand why you keep bringing up the Lester circle and van Lamoen circle.  If these are the same thing as the Dao six point circle, then it would be better to rename the article to a more standard name rather than adopt a neologism.  Is that what you mean?   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I mean: Lester circle, and van Lamoencircle also the circle in a triangle, and Dao six-point circle also is the circle in a triangle, I don't know why not keep Dao six point circle on Wikipedia? --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, so as an example, I would argue that the van Lamoen circle is notable, not because it is a circle in a triangle, nor because it is named after someone, but because it appears in an article published in the American Mathematical Monthly, as well as other secondary sources (ETC and mathworld).  That's the sort of external coverage we would like to see.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Why you said: "Whether the ETC named it after somebody is also irrelevant", no, I think this is valid. Because Mister Kimberling Clack (who is expert in geometry, he is professor and Advisors: in Forum geometricorum http://forumgeom.fau.edu/editors.html, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Kimberling) he know the Dao six point circle is new or old. Example: I posted problem xxxx in Crux or AMM, later there is someone research my problem, he write: "A synthetic proof Eighcirclesproblem theorem,". And example Droz-Farny posted a remarkable theorem, later Jean Luis Ayme research and write the paper with named after "...... Synthetic Droz-Farny theorem....". example "Floor van Lamoen" posted your circle problem on AMM, Later Nguyen Minh Ha write the paper with name "......van Lamoen theorem.....". I think named a problem after who discovered is normal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightcirclestheorem (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. But the situation you just described of someone publishing a paper with a problem solution does not appear to be what happened in the case of the subject of this discussion.  If it appeared as the subject of a paper, that would be a stronger argument for inclusion.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ETC is reliable source, its be using many time in for the article for triangle . Example: Click

http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2009volume9/FG2009Volume9.pdf Use Ctrl+F returns 31 hits for Kimberling http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2010volume10/FG2010volume10.pdf, Use Ctrl+F returns 27 hits for Kimberling, http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2011volume11/FGvolume11.pdf Use Ctrl+F returns 27 hits for Kimberling. And magazine only publish original result, but dictionary can publish original or secondary result. --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, ETC is a reliable source. STFW?  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossard_perspector only used ETC and https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Hyacinthos/conversations/topics/9666. And I think if a result is nice and true, don't need come from a Journal. Journal usual for professionals, amateurs am also still have a nice result on forum(and reliable sourse as ETC,...). So wiki never posted nice result of amateurs? --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for amateur mathematics research. Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it be using for every body, don't need result of professionals. It can posted resut of amateur mathematics research which result true and nice. You think amateur mathematics have no nice result? And You think all problem posted on Magazines are nice? No, problem is nice or not itself. And You think Kimberling Clack, Peter Mosese is an amateur mathematics, Dao six point circle be checked by Kimberling Clack, Peter Moses, and many people, and be proved by two people on Forum and checked be Geogebra software, Mathematical software? --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we publish notable results of amateur mathematicians. This needs to be evidenced by a number of sufficiently high quality secondary sources (a paper or book chapter, for instance). But we don't just publish any old result (even those by professional mathematicians). We have guidelines that help to objectively determine whether a result is notable in this sense. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to You very much, have two proof at here but by Vietnamese: http://diendantoanhoc.net/forum/index.php?%2Ftopic%2F108993-%C4%91%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Dng-tr%C3%B2n-%C4%91%C3%A0o-thanh-oai%2F . And you can view Dao six-point circle online at here: http://www.geogebratube.org/student/m129281, and wiew at http://www.geogebratube.org/student/m129285 --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2014 (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.