Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of curves (2nd nomination)

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, without prejudice to future merge discussions. postdlf (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of curves

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a visual index to our articles on named curves. WP:NOTGALLERY proscribes "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles". In this index each image has an associated article, so this is not a "mere collection", and WP:NOTGALLERY obviously does not apply. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTGALLERY refers to articles "with no text". This article contains text and, if we should want more, this is best done by further editing in accordance with our editing policy, not by deletion. The topic has a clear and coherent theme and so is quite proper. Warden (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the grounds that there does exist at least one book which contains a list of interesting curves (no sniggering at the back, naughty boys), but unfortunately I haven't actually seen the book I'm thinking of for over 30 years and can't remember what it's called. No way can it be a unique compendium - it's just a matter of finding them.

I'm also looking at Murray Spiegel's Mathematical Handbook which contains a small compendium of "special plane curves" - oh, and let's not forget Abramowitz and Stegun. So if we wanted to cite the fact that there are lists out there containing graphs / curves / whatever, they're out there. --Matt Westwood 21:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of curves. Currently its seeming like a pretty random selection of curves, with no inclusion criteria and no ordering. List of curve is more structured ordering by degree and dividing into various types but it could really do with some illustrations.--Salix (talk): 21:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of curves and remove redirect. As Salix says the selection is pretty random, for example Trott curve was changed to a redirect ages ago. In fact a good number of the curves shown are of dubious notability and possible AfD targets while some important curves are missed out, so it might be better to just start from scratch. That would make my vote almost a delete. The article is pretty much an orphan so I don't see a need for a redirect if a merge happens. Many articles with the name "Gallery of ..." are redirects to the commons; I'd have no objection to that. --RDBury (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Matt Westwood. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep or merge. Providing a visual access to the most important curves is a good idea, but the current gallery is missing so many that deleting it in this state is not a big loss, however keeping and extending it might be the better approach.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ideally, I would like to see this merged with List of curves. That article would benefit from a better layout and images for each of the curves that it lists. However, this isn't likely to happen because of an AfD debate without some dedicated and knowledgeable editors working on it. For now, two less-than-perfect articles is better than a single disastrous one. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Gandalf61. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gandalf61, even though the article isn't perfect. 202.124.72.28 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2011 (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.