Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonti diagram


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Tonti diagram

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Written by Enzo Tonti to promote ideas by Enzo Tonti, it's sourced to a book by Enzo Tonti and a YouTube video by Enzo Tonti (other than references for the background). No secondary sources, no indication of notability. I think that's the most bizarre article I have seen on Wikipedia. It also holds the record for maintenance templates: WP:COI, copyvio, too technical, written like an essay, unencyclopaedic, orphan, unsourced. I mean, just look at it. Tercer (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete "I mean, just look at it" is apt. It's like a garbled rediscovery of the idea of intensive and extensive variables (commonplace in thermodynamics), blended with ... I'm not sure what, exactly. Finite element analysis? Lots of concepts thrown together and associated arbitrarily. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. If we're keeping any of this, it's the maintenance templates, because that is absolutely golden. Also, yeah: Tonti diagram, written by user ProfEnzoTonti (whose profile page literally just says "Enzo Tonti"), promoting a diagram by Enzo Tonti, sourced to a book by Enzo Tonti and a website made by Enzo Tonti, with external links being a YouTube video by Enzo Tonti and the ResearchGate page for Enzo Tonti. Enzo Tonti, by the way, had a page on Italian Wikipedia that was deleted for being self-promotion. You can't make this up. You just can't. This tall Tonti tale has to be archived somewhere. BJAODN, perhaps? AdoTang (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete for some combination of WP:FRINGE and WP:BOLLOCKS. PianoDan (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It might help to know that although Enzo Tonti named these after xyrself in the 1970s, and Georges A. Deschamps called them Deschamps diagrams in the 1980s, Alain Bossavit called them Maxwell's House more recently than either. ISBN 9783030037185 page 126 (Cortez Garcia et al.) tells us that they are visualizations of the de Rham complex. Also, none of those are speedy deletion rationales. Uncle G (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I add that whilst there are a fair few citations of Bossavit for what Tonti diagrams or Maxwell's House are, meaning that the idea has escaped its creators, I haven't found any of the people doing so doing more than pointing to Bossavit or Tonti for an actual explanation. They don't explain themselves.  Even Cortez Garcia et al. give the whole thing just 1 short paragraph.  I haven't been able to find and read Bossavit directly.  Uncle G (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Google Books has several hits using the term in fairly recent books. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing I can find in a Google Books search is in-depth coverage, or even very clear about what the point of the things are. And who exactly is going to rewrite this disaster area of an article from scratch? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the only thing that I can verifiably say in article space from what I've found so far is, somewhat ironically, the two sentences that I wrote in this discussion. &#9786;  That doesn't really make for an article or even a good stub.  Most of the uses seem to be (paraphrasing) "A cute way of visualizing things is in Fig 1. (BOS 88)".  Phrase matching in a search engine means nothing.  It's whether the search engine turns up sources, and reading to see what they actually say, that is important. Uncle G (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Google searches in English, Italian, French, and Polish restricted to before 2013 yield at most 2 pages of results. While the diagrams did seem to be used in a few very specific courses in Europe, they don't seem to be widely taught or discussed within the relevant fields. JoelleJay (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Books, Google Scholar, and JSTOR are better than Google Web here. But what has come up in the results so far has not helped.  And even 1 page of results would be enough if those results were actually good sources supporting in-depth material. Everyone is welcome to find something that I have missed, though.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Present coverage is not enough to qualify for GNG. Citterz (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per explanation of the nominator as to why this is not a notable subject. Wikipedia is not a platform for individuals to promote themselves of their ideas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or Speedy Delete in full agreement with Tercer, XOR'easter and AdoTang. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 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.