Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slab (geometry)


 * 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Slab (geometry)

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

This may be on the level (heh) but I can't find any examples of this use of "slab". I can't access the single given source, and have the suspicion that this is a term coined by this author, rather than something in general use. But it's entirely possible that the problem is being masking by the overwhelming amount of uses of the term in geology.

If sources can be found, I guess this would still be better off merged or redirected to plane (geometry) than as a standalone. In absence of sources, suggest deletion. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment "Slab geometry" is a widely used concept in physics and engineering. Adopting a slab geometry allows for turning turning a 3D problem into a 1D problem. Gscholar yields 25,000 results for '"slab geometry" simulation' and 23,000 results for '"slab geometry" transport'. The concept is used in mathematics, too, e.g., and . --  09:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with all these hits is that what I can sample refers to physical uses of the term (which obviously are common in physics, engineering, and most of all geology). For this specific definition we need the purely mathematical one. I think one of yours might do that, if I am parsing that correctly (the other  appears to be particle physics). Something a little more straightforward and less knurled would be even better. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We have different points of view. I consider applied mathematics, such as applied geometry, to be mathematics, so that many of the top hits are relevant. I agree with XOR'easter that the isolated concept of a slab is simple. Like the topic of periodic boundary conditions, the richness comes not in the definition, but in its application. -- 03:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I see a lot of discussion on the concept of slab in geometry and less definitive statements on whether or not you think this article should be kept, deleted, merged or redirected. I've learned a bit about geometry here but can't decipher what this means in terms of what you think should happen to this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The source does seem to use this phrase (with a formal definition) several times as a tool (the book is a book of convex analysis; an intersection of slabs is convex; in several cases the books uses this to study a particular convex set). However, there is no content in the source about slabs beyond a definition.  I can find a small number of other compatible uses, e.g.,  and  and, so this may be a standard if not extremely common definition.  I'm rather skeptical that one can spin an encyclopedic article about slabs out of these kinds of references, in which everything encyclopedic belongs to some other article (e.g., my third link could be a reference in Tarski's plank problem ("plank" in place of "slab" here), and any encyclopedic content the reference currently in slab (geometry) would go in some article about convex analysis).  --JBL (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It might be hard to write an encyclopedia article on this topic, rather than a dictionary definition. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Essentially this definition (but not specific to three dimensions) is standard in computational geometry; see e.g.   all using it (and not necessarily explaining it because it is standard). There's not much to say about it but then that's not really different from other geometric concepts like points and lines. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with the analogy: there's lots to say about lines as elementary and axiomatic geometry (their different representations and equations, the notion of parallelism in different geometries, ...) and points (philosophical questions about what is a point) beyond the definition -- is there really anything analogous for slabs? --JBL (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's probably more similar to the linked Half-plane and Spherical shell. Equations could certainly be listed as well. With Constructive solid geometry intersecting three slabs can construct a box. Bounding volume and Convex polytope also talk about slabs. Cgbuff (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We could certainly talk about algorithmic problems as well. In particular the minimum-width slab enclosing a set of points is the width of the set, and the minimum vertical distance instead of minimum distance between the planes gives a standard example of a low-dimensional linear program. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The linked source is accessible online / for download from the linked reference. I doubt it's coined by this author, it was just the clearest pure mathematical source I managed to find so far. Cgbuff (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I can actually access the source from this location. Doesn't work as a definition though - he just goes ahead and uses the term. Shouldn't this kind of thing be available out in an undergrad primer or suchlike? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The glossary of informally defines slab. The term is also used in the slab method for point location. Cgbuff (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I think that's starting to look pretty good now... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * To clarify, I think that with current content and sourcing we can keep. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm still not entirely convinced that this concept is best addressed with a stand-alone page, but I am persuaded that keeping the page around would be harmless. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:45, 31 July 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.