Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diagonal formula


 * 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  Redirect to Diagonal Mandsford 00:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Diagonal formula

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a notable topic, pure WP:OR. Author removed PROD without explanation. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 21:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject is real, the title is bad (albeit also real, in some circles), and the explanation is sophomoric. There's actually a fair amount to be said about the diagonals of a polygon, including theorems about the intersection points of diagonals of regular polygons, partially trangulated polygons, and so forth.  Some of it is already said in Regular polygon and diagonal.  Certainly this is already said, and said better.  There's no worthwhile content to retain here.  Redirect to one or the other, according to taste. This is not original research, by the way.  There's no new thesis that doesn't exist outwith Wikipedia here.  I could point you to a "Dummies" book that contains this thesis (and even that is better written).  "Original research" is not a catch-all name for poorly written stuff. Uncle G (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm less than convinced that this is the most likely target for the search term diagonal formula. A Google Scholar search does not appear to be referring to this notion on the first page of hits. --Trovatore (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Dummies" book calls it the diagonal formula.  "Here's where the diagonal formula comes from and why it works.", it says, going on to provide a derivation for the formula that Wikipedia lacks.  Yes, there are other things called a diagonal formula, but since someone took it into xyr head to write about this diagonal formula here, and since it is called that, a redirect seems reasonable.  It's not as if it is beyond the wit of Wikipedia editors to make a disambiguation if someone comes up with some other place that a redirect should point to in the future.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment from nom: I guess I meant "OR" in the sense of, it's in his own words. Like if I tried to write about E = mc2 in my own words. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 23:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I forget what the antonym of brilliant prose is. We do have one, though.  Uncle G (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ummm... most text for most articles are written in one's own words. That's not original research. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Uncle G, or write a proper disambiguation entry. The subject is obviously not original research, but it is equally clear to me that the topic is unworthy of a separate article.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Diagonal. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2011 (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.
 * 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.