Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derivations of conic sections

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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 23:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derivations of conic sections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article seems to fall under the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Instruction Manuals" section of the What Wikipedia is not guideline. It's essentially an instruction manual for how to derive the conic sections formulae from geometric definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DroEsperanto (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 December 2006

• Delete. The basic information is already present in circle and parabola. I don't think the equations of circles and parabolas require further explanation, but even if we decide they do, that would only be a couple of lines. The detail in the nominated article is excessive for an encyclopaedia, and I don't see how it can be used as a basis. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Difficult to understand, doesn't provide any new insight. I don't see the point or utility of this. linas 15:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Abstain. Oh, I understand it now. The tables were confusing. recatting to category:Article proofs which is what this seems to be. linas 16:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge useful information with Conic section. The graphics don't help at all; in fact, one "proof" is without context as it was never stated what was to be proven. B.Wind 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm don't think it should be merged with Conic section, because the way the formulas are being derived is not in the context of their being intersections of planes and cones, which is what the conic sections article is about. DroEsperanto 19:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This doesn't look like any kind of mathematics I've ever seen. It's not the level of detail that's unencyclopedic so much as the contorted presentation. Melchoir 05:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this looks exactly like the kind of mathematics I know from the high school :-) and it is too lenghty and too technical to be merged with the main article about conic sections, I think. --Ioannes Pragensis 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Transwiki to Wikibooks. Line-by-line proofs weren't helpful in high school, and they aren't useful to the encyclopedia; as the confusion on this page should show. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There are different types of high schools. And in the college, they are definitely useful. (OK the form of the article should be better.)--Ioannes Pragensis 07:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep not necessarily as value as proofs - but schematically useful as a reference. Exactly what one looks for in an encyclopaedia WilyD 18:27, 20 December 2006 (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.