Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ear 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, though some of the !votes mention a merging. Was this article merged anywhere? I don't see much evidence of merging (nothing in Wiktionary, epispiral merely contains the formula in another form), and the original article was a mere dicdef. Therefore, I think it's safe to delete this. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ear curve

Dictionary definition. Dismas|^(talk) 06:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite - I'm sure this can be expanded so it is not a one-line dictdef into something like Rose curve. MER-C 07:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• I doubt one can say much about this on its own, so Merge into Rose curve. Michael Kinyon 11:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect (but don't bother merging) to Epispiral per David Eppstein and Salix alba below. (I don't agree about "rose curve" versus "rhodonea curve", but that's a different discussion.) Michael Kinyon 18:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• To clarify what I meant about merging: the information that this curve is inverse to the rose should be included in Epispiral; it isn't there now. But I agree with Lambiam that a redirect isn't appropriate because there seem to be no references to the curve by this name outside WP. —David Eppstein 19:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete – neologism. --Lambiam^Talk 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Epispiral. I couldn't find references to this curve under this name in several indexes of famous curves [1] [2] [3] [4]. For that matter, the rose curve to which it refers is much more commonly called the rhodonea curve. But this is a reasonably well known curve, under a different name, the epi spiral: e.g., see [5] [6] or other results of a Google search on that name. —David Eppstein 16:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete now that the information has been merged. —David Eppstein 23:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• redirect to Epispiral. Could not find any references to the curve under this name. --Salix alba (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  So if someone introduces an article with, say, title Hairy number and text "A hairy number is an integer that is divisible by another integer", it should not be deleted but be redirected to Composite number, even though no-one except the creator uses this term for this kind of number? --Lambiam^Talk 18:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete - convinced by Lambiam. --Salix alba (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yep, excellent point. Having searched pretty hard for the term myself, I've changed my mind again. Delete! Michael Kinyon 22:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Wiktionary. Some P. Erson 23:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete; do not merge, do not transwiki to Wiktionary; the statement about its inverse is now in epispiral. Septentrionalis 23:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect under the theory that somewhere, buried under all the many links to "ear curve" that refer to the fleshy appendage's shape, there may be somebody talking about a "reverse rose curve" or something vaguely related to Epispiral. If the clueless author of that page ever searches WP, let him be redirected. Meanwhile, I can't imagine any other topic that might belong under this title. Redirects are cheap and do not endorse the alternate/mistaken/misspelt term. John Reid 01:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think that "somewhere" exists. Googling for ear-curve and rose-curve returns no non-WP hits; same in Google scholar. —David Eppstein 03:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. And in the meantime there are several other legitimate uses for the term, such as for biometric profiles and for adjusting auditory aids, so if someone should search for this term they are almost surely looking for soemthing else. --Lambiam^Talk 03:22, 25 September 2006 (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.