Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden diamond


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Golden diamond

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Original research / not a notable mathematical concept. The only reference that appears to mention this is the ArXiv paper, and I can't find coverage. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree that references are lacking.  Indeed, given the content, I would be surprised if reputable sources were referencing this topic.  It is just one of many possible iteratively constructed diagrams one can build, not notable. Ebony Jackson (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a pretty-enough structure but that's not a notability criterion. All but the first of the ten references is background, and the one exception is an arXiv preprint, not reliable, so this appears to fail GNG. The article is written to appear as if the Northshield reference also describes this structure, but it doesn't: the geometric structure it describes is built of squares, not equilateral triangles. (One can't merely say that they're the same because if you throw away the geometry and turn them into graphs you get the same graph; the geometry is what makes it a fractal. And they're not even the same graph unless you add horizontal diagonals to Northshield's squares.) So we don't appear to have any of the multiple reliable independent in-depth sources required by WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The graph of the Northshield article is fundamentally the same as the one in the ArXiv paper; the "horizontal diagonals" are only a superficial difference. The main significance of the geometry derives from the underlying tree structure and its relation to the Fibonacci diatomic sequence, which is studied in both Northshield's JSTOR article and Tezlaf's ArXiv paper. From a careful read of both papers, it's clear that the authors do actually focus on the same properties of the fractal, but the current wiki article could address this more. This wiki article is being edited to include more content in this regard, emphasizing the overlap of these papers, in addition to outlining the more notable features of the fractal, which have not yet been included.
 * Significant additions to the article have been made with particular emphasis on the most notable features of the geometry, of which there are several: namely, the complete embedding of the Fibonacci diatomic sequence, the entire set of Fibonacci words, and the entire set of integers of the phinary (base-phi) positional number system. These features are unique and noteworthy, and I strongly disagree with the statement of that the geometry "is just one of many possible iteratively constructed diagrams one can build", as these properties are not at all trivial. As someone interested in this topic, I have made an effort in compiling this wiki article for others like me to understand the work of the authors cited here—as it is relevant. I do not agree it is justifiable for deletion and kindly ask for your reconsideration. —Giver grey568 16:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * An additional peer-reviewed journal source (Fibonacci Quarterly) was found and added to the article. The reference provides an additional description of the occurrence of the Fibonacci word pattern in the fractal, in addition to other "numerous interesting properties" of the geometry, which have been covered in the wiki article. —Giver grey568 18:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Starting with a non-notable structure and then bulking it up with mentions of similar structures, themselves rather marginal, seldom leads to a high-quality article. This appears to be no exception. Indeed, the article appears to be not just based on arXiv:1806.00331, but heavily copied from there, including figures uploaded to Commons and marked as "own work". This is either a copyright violation or self-promotion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The arXiv preprint is not a reliable source. As for the papers by Northshield, they don't establish this diagram / figure / fractal / graph itself as an independently notable topic. (I could imagine A000119 might plausibly be a subject of a section of some article, and if so, it's possible that some combinatorial interpretations or visualizations a la Northshield might be noteworthy there. Similarly, if there was a main article for Stern's diatomic sequence, some content referencing some of what Northshield writes about may be worth a mention there. The point is, there are ways for Giver_grey568 or other editors to contribute on related subjects using some of the assembled references. But what the references don't do is show that "Golden diamond" itself is notable.) Adumbrativus (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The figures were uploaded to Commons by myself but were originally created by S. V. Tezlaf, who gave permission for their use as I contacted him about writing the wiki article; however, I do not personally know the author and am not involved with the research. The marking of figures as "own work" appears to have been the incorrect procedure. If that can be altered, I would elect to do so to avoid copyright issues.
 * The heavier reliance on the arXiv article over Northshield's was based on the clarity and breadth of the work. Whether or not the arXiv preprint is considered a reliable source does not change the mathematical facts therein. A proof is a proof. The choice of using the name "golden diamond" as the article title was due to its appeal over Northshield's various and slightly more obscure names, S_{2,3} and Fibonacci Representation Graph; however, all names are now added to the introduction of the wiki text. What is important here is that both authors deem the geometry significant. Looking through Northshield's work, there appears to be even more significance then has yet been addressed: namely, that that the graph represents a quasicrystal. —Giver grey568 11:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarification of relevance, definition, and notability have been made to the introduction. Additional references have been added. —Giver grey568 12:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Never heard of this before but I agree with the author or authors (?) of the wiki article that the topic is significant and noteworthy. At least I know others in this field who would be interested in this, as well. The number of reliable sources does seem to run thin but I don't see any problems with the content, which easily checks out. Not sure what Adumbrativus is on about... the cited papers all remark on the notability of this tree / fractal. The Northshield author expresses several times that the graph has particularly interesting properties, which is corroborated, apparently independently, in the preprint, as well. Anyway, would be a pity to censor info like this. Don't see the point really... other than preventing others such as myself from learning and building upon what is known. Fractalphile1618 (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC) — Fractalphile1618 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete: Fails WP:GNG due to the paucity of RS coverage. The only published academic literature that mentions this graph (under the name of "Fibonacci Representation Graph") appears to be, an article which itself does not appear to have been cited nor significantly covered in other published literature. — MarkH21talk 16:34, 7 March 2021 (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.