Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trapezoid height

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 redirect restored by article creator. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 18:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trapezoid height[edit]

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

Not notable. Only sourced to some blog, but even if it were properly sourced the “trapezoid height“ or any particular derivation of it is not independently notable. Should redirect to Trapezoid, e.g. to Trapezoid#Midsegment and height. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What under what criterion of notability does this fail? You are not being specific. It should not redirect to Trapezoid#Midsegment and height because there the statement of the fact is given without proof. Please give your argument with respect to the definition. Under what definition is a forum about math an invalid source? In fact, by your argument the image of a visual proof of the Pythagorean theorem uploaded by you and linked through your talk page is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.219.24 (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could direct you to WP:OTHERSTUFF but actually Pythagoras's theorem is a good example. Despite the theorem being so important that some of its proofs are well known and named, such as Euclid's proof, none of them has their own article. Trapezoid is not so long that it needs breaking up into separate articles, and the height of the trapezoid is adequately covered at Trapezoid#Midsegment and height.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement amounts to Pythagoras's theorem is important so it deserves several proofs in an encyclopedia, whereas the height of a trapezoid is not important so it can be stated without proof. This is not an argument but your personal opinion. Furthermore, editors from trapezoid suggested and endorsed the creation of a separate page for the proof rather than having the proof in that page; you can see this on the talk page for trapezoid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.219.24 (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nominator; a separate article is not justified. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
note the article creator Darkhipo has restored the redirect. I assume they are the same person as the IPs above, in which case this is probably a snow close/CSD A7.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (that should be Darkhipo - corrected)--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:11, 19 July 2016 (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.