Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conway triangle notation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎. Closure of AFDs is not based on any one opinion, including my own, but consensus and right now, I see no consensus here. Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conway triangle notation

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Conway triangle notation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

MathWorld is notorious for neologisms, and this is one. MathWorld in turn sources this notation only to an unpublished book manuscript that uses this notation only in the formulation of a single formula. My prod saying as much was reverted by User:Mast303 with no improvement and a WP:VAGUEWAVE at notability, so here we are. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's surprising - you can find LOTS of people mentioning this convention, but very little discussion of the convention itself. For the amount of hits you get back, I'm definitely surprised to discover that it doesn't really seem to have enough support to justify inclusion at the moment. PianoDan (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't have an opinion on whether to keep or delete the article, but I will mention that I saw this notation a long time ago. I don't think it's a term coined by MathWorld, but admittedly I have no sources to back this up. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 00:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Comment. I created this article in 2008 because I noted that a number of published papers in projective geometry that I was reading at the time used the Conway notation as a short hand and there did not exist any scholarly article detailing the notation or how best to use it. The only reference at the time was the entry in MathWorld and it referred to Yiu, P. "Notation." §3.4.1 in Introduction to the Geometry of the Triangle. pp. 33-34, Version 2.0402, April 2002.

    Deleting the article because an editor believes that "Conway triangle notation" is a neologism created by MathWord seems excessive and probably incorrect. I do not know who coined the phrase "Conway triangle notation" but details of the notation were published by Paul Yiu in his very popular and well cited Book/Journal, "Introduction to the Geometry of the Triangle" first published in 2001.

    Today, many papers in geometry use the notation here is a recent example:-

    Trigonometric Polynomial Points in the Plane of a Triangle by Clark Kimberling 1, and Peter J. C. Moses - see section 7 at https://www.mdpi.com/3042-402X/1/1/5.

    I note that there are 2 other language versions of the article. The Dutch version also has no references. Will this be deleted by the same editor or will it remain? I believe there needs to be consistency.

    Finally, I will insert 2 references into the article - The Paul Yiu reference mentioned above and a reference to the Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers and ETC Part 1 "Introduced on November 1, 2011: Combos" Note 6. - Frank M. Jackson (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 12:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Frank M. Jackson. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 07:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Frank M. Jackson that says that this is Conway's triangle notation and cites Yiu? Or the Frank M. Jackson that says that it isn't and cites a paper showing that Yiu was wrong? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My experience is similar to PianoDan's. Excluding the CRC Encyclopaedia, for obvious reasons, I went looking for other sources. Everyone seems to cite either Wikipedia or MathWorld. The 19th century mathematician mentioned above cannot possibly have documented a "Conway" notation 43 years before Conway was born. And indeed xe didn't. There is a nonce notation there, but it isn't attributed to anyone and just called a potencia. MathWorld's article on the notation by Peter Moses traces it back to Yiu, but Yiu simply does not give any citation to Conway for this, unlike for other things. MathWorld's article on the Johnson Triangle attributes this to personal communications from Peter Moses and one … Frank M. Jackson. This is starting to seem very circular. And it's even odder that we are in the situation of a Frank M. Jackson now arguing to keep this article on the basis it is not Conway's triangle notation but is someone else's from the 19th century, outright invalidating the Yiu source that is being proffered at the same time. Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of well-known formulae about the triangle dressed up with a notation for which the name given in the article does not have any reliable reference. If it is used in actual textbooks it could possibly be merged into the triangle article but according to the comments above the name for the notation certainly does not belong on Wikipedia. jraimbau (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, there is no agreement or consensus on an outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Comment. No one has commented on the fact that if the English version is deleted there will remain 3 other language versions of the article on Wikipedia. Frank M. Jackson (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is completely irrelevant. The other Wikipedias operate independently with independent notability standards. It is frequently the case that articles deemed non-notable here continue to have other language versions. It is also frequently the case that the notability of the other-language versions has not been tested yet. Additionally, I have struck your boldface "keep" because you are allowed only one of those per AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conway_triangle_notation&oldid=1283548841"