Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schneider's sine approximation 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Schneider's sine approximation formula

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Bad promotion to article space by User:Beland, who seems more intent on clearing out draft space than in checking the notability and suitability for mainspace of the promotion targets. The article has no sources and a search for various permutations of the title wording in Google Scholar found nothing usable as a source. If this were created in any other way I would draftify but that seems an inappropriate way to contest a promotion from draftspace. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I didn't find coverage in reliable sources. For anyone else trying to search, I think if sources exist they are more likely to mention smoothstep and probably wouldn't mention Schneider (whoever that is). Adumbrativus (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Among the "various permutations" in WP:BEFORE I did try a search for only the words "smoothstep" and "Schneider". No luck. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - yup, I'm cleaning up draft space so 1.) we don't lose good content after 6 months and 2.) so we don't have to keep dealing with the overhead of bad content being auto-deleted and then undeleted every 6 months just because it's on WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages, which survived MFD. I figured that once this started getting attention, either people would find sources for it or it would get nominated for deletion. I leave it up to the math experts to determine which is better for this article. If any math experts want to go through the list and more expertly decide on the disposition of the various inactive articles in limbo, that would save me the trouble. -- Beland (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a bad reason for promoting dubious content to mainspace. Just wait the six months and let it get deleted. You'll get your answer to whether it was important that way rather than by what you are doing, taking ownership of a mess and then forcing the rest of us to go through all this work to clean up a mess that is yours. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said, at the end of the six months, these articles just get undeleted regardless of merit, because they are on the list. At some point people need to actually consider the merit of the topic. I'm glad that you are applying your expertise to help discern the best disposition for this content, but if you don't have the time or desire to do so, no one is forcing you to participate; you can just leave it up to other editors. I don't just mindlessly promote all the drafts on the list to article space; some of them I nominate for deletion, and then editors complain about doing that. If people complain that articles of uncertain value can't be auto-deleted after 6 months, can't be nominated for manual deletion, can't be promoted to article space, and no one ever looks at the drafts to discern their merit, then it seems someone is going to be unhappy no matter what happens to this content. -- Beland (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Stale drafts that have been deleted shouldn't be undeleted just because they had been listed at WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages. Instead, the links should be removed from that list. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I support doing that, but the page says "Do not remove red links unless the drafts are no longer needed (undeletion requests of them might be needed.)" This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages, if you want to re-open that question. -- Beland (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Because that is a practice which makes literally no sense to me, I have done so. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: The key issue is that the article has zero refs. My quick Google search didn’t yield any refs that we can use. (Of course, there can be offline refs, though) Unless there is a way to address the ref issue, the article needs to be gone. —- Taku (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm getting a thing made up one day vibe from this; searching for reasonable permutations of the topic name turned up nothing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research (to be fair using smoothstep to approximate sine or cosine is also discussed here and alluded to here, so maybe this could get a mention in the smoothstep article) . The oldest version of the article literally states It was created by Taylor Schneider (February 18th, 2022), a twenty-first-century American Programmer. (Checking the page creator's ArtStation account on his userpage confirms that Taylor Schneider is indeed the creator.) Interesting idea though. Duckmather (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. At best, this is utterly not notable; at worst, this is WP:OR. The rationale provided above for moving a draft that has zero references to the Article namespace is absolutely bizarre to me. -- Kinu t/c 21:22, 1 August 2022 (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.