Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swastika curve


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Swastika curve

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

unnotable mathematical curve. sourced only to the creator of the curve's book (the external link references that book). search for sources yields nothing. lettherebedarklight晚安 09:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight晚安 09:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Mathematical Models, the book in question by Cundy and Rollett. The claim is not notable in itself but is worth a mention in the book article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would this be worth a mention at your proposed target? It would be a substantial part of short article devoted to a comparatively minor part of the whole book.  Giving such attention to just this but nothing else would seem to be WP:UNDUE. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it's reliably sourced, certainly sufficiently for a brief mention in Wikipedia's usual "summary style". There is no suggestion of keeping the entire article text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The only thing I can find about this is from open wikis, the mention on Mathworld, and one in a CRC book, which is simply a bare listing along with tons of others with no further information.  Looking at other articles on plane curves, this doesn't seem to meet notability requirements.  I'd also oppose a merge/redirect per my reply above. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an exhaustive repository of all functions that people have plotted somewhere. I concur that a merge to Mathematical Models would be giving this topic undue weight in the target article. It could be mentioned there if, hypothetically, a book review called attention to it, but that doesn't appear to have been the case. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have two sources (Cundy & Rollett, and MathWorld), but the MathWorld source merely repeats that this is from Cundy & Rollett, so it doesn't provide the independent coverage needed for WP:GNG. No redirect, no merge: this is too minor an aspect of the content of Mathematical Models to include there, so much so that any mention of it in that article would almost have the appearance of Nazi trolling. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete (no merge or redirect), per all above Delete-!voters: non-notable, non-GNG, too minor a part of Cundy & Rollet's book to feature in the article about it. By comparison, think of all the really interesting bits in Gödel, Escher, Bach... that we don't discuss in the article about the book. People can read the books if they want to see all the bits. – . Raven .talk 02:49, 12 May 2023 (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.