Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow piercing


 * 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. But redirect Rainbow covering to Covering problem where it was merged to.  Sandstein  11:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Rainbow piercing

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm bundling these three:


 * Rainbow piercing
 * Rainbow covering
 * Rainbow minmax gap

These appear to be colourful ( zing  ) neologisms for specific geometry problems that have been treated by only one research group; looks like A. Banik's lab. I can't find any instances of usage beyond the few by this author. If someone wants to make a case for merging or redirecting (to computational geometry or the like), please go ahead, but I suspect the topics are not high-profile enough to make that useful. - Add: I just noticed that there are two well-developed articles Rainbow matching and Rainbow-independent set. These may be suitable merge targets. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, Rainbow minmax gap appears to cite one paper independent of A. Banik, but that on its own is not enough for notability. No prejudice against merging if an appropriate way to do so can be found. signed,Rosguill talk 22:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rainbow covering can be merged into Covering problems, as I did now. Though in retrospect I think it is better as a stand-alone page, since it is related both to covering problems and to rainbow problems. --Erel Segal (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep My search found a second reference Algorithms and Computation 26th International Symposium, ISAAC 2015, Nagoya, Japan, December 9-11, 2015, Proceedings the article is encyclopedic Jeepday (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * that's from the same authors, again - the Banik lab. We require some use of these names outside of the small group that coined them. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete all three. Rainbow covering is already adequately covered in Covering problems. There is insufficient coverage by independent sources to sustain standalone articles at this point. Even merging is somewhat problematic, since the topics seemed to have been treated by a single author's lab's work in the literature. Something like that is not ready for encylopedic content. Nsk92 (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep rainbow covering. While the concept itself was studied only by one group, it is related to some well-studied concepts such as "rainbow X" (e.g. rainbow matching) and "X covering" (e.g. polygon covering). So it adds to the general picture of the field. --Erel Segal (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Being related to" a notable concept or concepts is insufficient to establish notability, per the WP:NOTINHERITED principle. To sustain a standalone WP article about rainbow covering we would need evidence of significant coverage by independent sources, which does not appear to exist at this point. The topic is already covered in Covering problems, and that's sufficient under the circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable problems that have not received significant coverage in sources independent of the originating group of authors.Pontificalibus 13:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Rainbow covering has already been merged into covering problem; it should be converted into a redirect (not deleted). --JBL (talk) 15:22, 14 February 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.