Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line-line intersection Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Line-line_intersection

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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Line-line intersection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a textbook Bg9989 (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NOTTEXTBOOK states "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples." The topic is not presented in this way and, even if it were, the issue would be best addressed by editing not deletionn, per WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CANTFIX Bg9989 (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be a new editor and so are in a weak position to assert what is or isn't possible. It takes just a few seconds to find a source which discusses an algorithm for determining the intersection of lines in 3D. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Historical reference to it's proof or origin is needed. When, how and who derived it is part of what would make it more encyclopedic. --DHeyward (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a brief but thorough exposition -- a reference -- on a topic that clearly merits a place in an encyclopedia, at a time where Honey Boo boo -- Here_Comes_Honey_Boo_Boo -- appears to be making a vital contribution to this encyclopedia and seems beyond challenge. Lutusp (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Inadequate nomination rationale. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. I'll repeat what I already wrote on the companion AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distance from a point to a line: The nominator has badly misinterpreted NOTTEXTBOOK, which is properly a style guideline rather than a notability guideline (we shouldn't present topics like this with lots of worked examples and exercises the way a textbook would — but this article already didn't do that). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is far better than the title led me to expect. It's not written at all like a textbook. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The formulas for line-line intersection must be there, that's obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.236.234.32 (talk) 10:32, 13 March 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.