Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack (geometry)

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. Consensus appears against the merger Bearian proposed, but if an editor feels a redirect is helpful, that can be done without the history Star Mississippi 02:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack (geometry)

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

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

This appears to be a random collection of references that have separately used the title term inconsistently to refer to different shapes, with no depth of content beyond nomenclature. It is more about the name than any one shape, violating WP:NOTDICT. There is no evidence that there is a significant body of geometric research on a single specific shape with this name. My proposed deletion saying the same thing was removed without comment or improvement by the article creator. To which I would add that, to the extent the article is about computer modeling of the Knucklebones pieces, it is not separately notable, does not warrant a separate article, and the title term should not even be redirected to Knucklebones, because it is not an article-worthy topic in geometry any more than computer graphic modeling of any other physical object in the world. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one into the other: either Knucklebones into Jack (geometry), or vice-versa, per WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT; preserving any of this cruft by merging would just add text to a different article that would deserve to be removed. XOR'easter (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can understand the motivation behind the article; it is a semi well-known model in the demoscene community. But this CG and geometrical construct is not nearly as famous as say, the Utah teapot, and does not have the support of multiple in-depth reliable sources as a topic in itself. The article has a good bit of synthesis, too. As this point, it fails WP:GNG. I wouldn't be opposed to a well-referenced sentence or two in Knucklebones, but a merge of the current content won't fly from a verification and due weight point of view. Hence delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgbuff (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> different shapes

It's always the same general shape. There are some details that are sometimes omitted, so there's some variance.

> There is no evidence that there is a significant body of geometric research

That is not a requirement for a wikipedia article. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK

> My proposed deletion was removed without improvement

Incorrect? WP:AGF I improved the article in the same change. The note you added said "You may remove this message if you improve the article." Cgbuff (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "it's always the same shape", which shape? The union of three crossed ellipsoids? The union of three ellipsoids and four balls at some of their ends? The union of three rectangular cuboids? Cylinders? Capsules? Those are all different shapes. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is irrelevant here. That policy is about how Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not, well, a textbook: articles should not have leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2024 (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.