Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobi point

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. And moved to Jacobi's theorem (geometry) Sam Walton (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobi point

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

per WP:NOTJOURNAL, this appears to be written like a textbook or scientific journal - more importantly, I could not establish notability or significance for this during a web search. Garchy (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This stub is written like every other math article in Wikipedia. It states the theorem and the associated point, states who it is attributable to, and shows how it relates to other math concepts, with wikilinks. It does not give a proof, which in the absense of special insight might make it a violation of WP:NOTJOURNAL. As for notability, the cited articles give some more citations, but I did not find it helpful to duplicate them in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loraof (talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references source the fact that this point is well defined, but not that it is called the "Jacobi point". And calling it the Jacobi point of a triangle is just wrong; it is not a triangle center, as it depends on the choice of angles as well as on the triangle itself. So if this is kept I think it should be moved to Jacobi's theorem (geometry), which is currently a redirect to this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Line 4 of the cited 2016 paper calls it the Jacobi point. Loraof (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ( move). The tone is not so shockingly more textbookish than that of your average math stub that deletion is warranted, I think. Improving it to reasonable levels would probably be easier than arguing about whether to delete it. Notability seems iffy, though, but meh, give the poor stub a chance. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but move to a statement of the theorem. I've seen other "Jacobi points" which might be more notable. Until they have articles, it's OK for Jacobi point to point to this article, but it's really about the theorem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments: (1) The complaint that this is written like a journal article or a textbook rather than like a Wikipedia article has no merit. It just makes me wonder if the person proposing this has ever seen any Wikipedia articles on elementary geometry or any other topic in mathematics. (2) If that were true, the remedy would be editing, not deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, WP:NOTJOURNAL certainly has merit, as the article should not exist based on that concern and the WP:NOTABILITY issues. As for whether I've read other articles on theorems - that certainly has nothing to do with whether this article should be kept or not, based on the merits I listed above about what Wikipedia is not and the potential notability/significance issues - the significance issue (whether this theorem should have a sole article as opposed to being merged is the main issue.) Garchy (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (but prefer move). As Loraof already said, "This stub is written like every other math article in Wikipedia", and the sourcing we have is sufficient for WP:GNG. I still think that this would be better as an article about the theorem (that these lines coincide) than about the point (where they coincide) but that doesn't have to be settled by the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's the sort of thing our core readers would be looking for, especially those taking the GRE. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 16 November 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.