Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedean–Galileo spiral

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 defeated by spiral power (delete). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedean–Galileo_spiral[edit]

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

Non-notable and contains original research. Maxal (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. There are no references cited, and no mentions of "Archimedean–Galileo_spiral" or plausible variants in ZMATH, suggesting that there is no literature on the subject. Deltahedron (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note Just to be clear, Maxal is the one who proposed the deletion; Deltahedron is simply giving a recommendation. Mark viking (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Except for a question posed on MathOverflow and the OEIS reference, I could find no references for "Archimedean Galileo spiral" or "Archimedes Galileo spiral" on Google Scholar or in Google books. Hits in Google seem to be connected to the Wikipedia article. Without secondary sources and only a primary source on OEIS (which itself has no references), this topic does not meet notability guidelines WP:GNG and the article should be deleted. Mark viking (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without any reliable sourcing, and without any representation of this term in the scientific literature, it is too close to original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Please note that there were other opinions on Wiki early from other users. Generally the article needs improvements for sources, no doubts. On the other hand it is very unclear why to delete it completely. The equiation exists. It's just to popularise math projects on Wiki. Why not to keep it somewhere ( not necessery as an article)? —Migvnk 31 January 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migvnk (talk • contribs) 19:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is a tertiary source. The articles hosted here must be solidly grounded in material that has already been published in reliable sources. Several people, including myself, have looked for these sources but have been unable to locate any. So the problem here isn't that the article needs improvement, but rather that (as far as we can tell) nothing has been published on the topic - and that makes it non-notable from the standpoint of a tertiary source. As intriguing as the math may be, it's simply not a good fit for Wikipedia unless existing secondary sources demonstrate its notability. Otherwise it is original research which is best published in places other than Wikipedia. Now it is possible that we missed something along the way. If you happen to know of any additional sources containing discussion of this topic, or the "other opinions on Wiki early from other users" mentioned some, please feel free to provide the citations. Anyways, hopefully this helps to answer your question. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did some searching, but could not locate any discussion in reliable sources. I find this situation curious though; the article suggests that this spiral is a generalized form from which both the Archimedean spiral and the Galileo spiral emerge as special cases. It would seem surprising to me if no mathematical literature at all took an interest in that. It is (at least remotely) possible that the article's title is a neologism and that the differential equation described therein is better known under some different name. But right now I'm simply not seeing any indication of notability. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. -- 202.124.73.31 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This is the second time discussion on English Wiki from where it was clear that the name of the spiral was granted for Wiki.. There was a link in Wiki, but I can hardly find it now ( it was on 7 Jan 2013 or so). But the second round of discussion appears again raised by the same user. Well, at least Mike Agricola agreed that math is an intriguing area. It is still unclear what the notability in math is. For eg, If a proof of Riemann hypothesis is published in Wiki despite that it’s not a “publishing platform” and there are no sources in science literature, will it be deleted too? If a person can understand that is true, shall he/she should delete it from WIki? Mike Agricola wrote: “It would seem surprising to me if no mathematical literature at all took an interest in that”. Yes, it surprisingly to me too. Well, you can easily see that for a well-known Archimedean spiral there is a property that for large angles the point, which forms the spiral, is moving along the Archimedean spiral with uniform acceleration (the error is about 1/(1+\pheta^2)). I cannot see sources to that property of Archimedean spiral which is known for years. But why do we need to delete it keeping is as a secret - a very unlcear way Migvnk 3 Feb 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migvnk (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines are not just rules that were made up for the sake of it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia in which material is based on what can be verified in independent reliable sources. If there are no such sources, there's nothing we can use to verify the validity of material. Hence it is impossible to write a verifiable article on a topic that fails to meet the notability guidelines. If, to take the example quoted, a proof of the Riemann hypothesis were to be found, it would soon attract independent analysis by reliable sources and we could then summarise the results of that analysis. Indeed, something similar recently occurred over Shinichi Mochizuki and his claimed proof of the abc conjecture. Deltahedron (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2013 (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.