Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derivation of the Cartesian form for an ellipse


 * 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. WP:OR is a no-go.  Sandstein  15:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Derivation of the Cartesian form for an ellipse

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be original research with no sources that actually state this derivation. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * delete It does not look like OR, in that it looks like a result that can probably be found in a textbook. But it is not a good topic for a standalone article. A derivation or proof rarely is, unless especially notable such as Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Not does it need including in ellipse, as too long and not especially interesting. If it had sources they could perhaps be used in ellipse to expand it but unsourced there is not reason to keep it or any of its content.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 00:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not OR (I believe it dates back to Descartes), but it's not of encyclopedic interest. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Ozob (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Any reader who is really interested in math would want to know how the equation $$x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1$$ is derived from the definition. While the proof is easy, it is not completely trivial either.  The derivation of such an important mathematical equation (this is not just a proof, it is a constructive proof) is definitely notable. Jrheller1 (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * there are a number of ways of defining an ellipse, a number of ways of describing it mathematically, and so many different ways of deriving one mathematical description of it from another. This is just one of those many methods, and unless evidence can be found it is notable in its own right then it does not need an article.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 09:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The proof article is not very well-written so I don't have any great interest in keeping that article. My only concern was that readers be able to quickly access the derivation of the equation from the definition if necessary.  Now that there is a link to an external derivation, there is no reason to keep the article. Jrheller1 (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete A mention on the relevant page together with an accessible source should be sufficient for this. I think that it would be nice to have a web source for this, cited directly at the place where cartesian equations are given and I am sure there are tons of lecture notes with proofs--I know some but they are in French. jraimbau (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I notice that this seems to be part of an ongoing edit war at Ellipse (see ). I added this external link at the relevant place in Ellipse, so I do not think there is anything else to do. (The source looks shaky, but it's totally non-WP:EXTRAORDINARY standard math.) Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Can it help a user looking up information on the Cartesian form of an ellipse? Yes. Can it harm those who run into it? No, they can ignore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.254.250 (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at WP:NOHARM, a redirect to a subsection of "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment wondering if moving to wikibooks might be an option? --Salix alba (talk): 06:52, 19 July 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.