mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangular rule Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Triangular_rule

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 Delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Triangular rule

[edit]
Triangular rule (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)

The topic does not seem to be WP:notable, even the reference supplied did not mention it in the index (I was unable to check the text), and I didn't find any vaguely similar topic using any of the bolded names using Google except for 'triangular rule' which had a use as something rather different - it is a way of numerically approximating an area given by polar coordinates. Dmcq (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and maybe speedy delete under criterion CSD G3. This looks like a hoax. I could find no references for the triangular rule in the context of numerical integration, at all, and the nom has verified that it does not appear as a significant concept in the single cited reference. The formula gives nonsense results; the integral of y=1 on the x-axis from 0 to 1 (i.e., a unit square) would have an area of 1/2 in this approximation. --Mark viking (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as hoax or at least something made up. It's impressive how random the GBook hits are, and there's no excuse for no such hits for a mathematical concept. Mangoe (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. The single reference does not contain the term "triangular rule", and the claimed alternate name "Rasmussen-Watts rule" does not appear on Google, Google Books or Google Scholar. Deltahedron (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete total nonsense, very likely hoax. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentDelete I have found some references in academic maths papers on numerical analysis to 'triangular integration rules' - I'll have a look for further details, but at the moment I'd say it doesn't look like a hoax to me. ---- nonsense ferret 00:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC) I understand the scepticism - I have looked at the history of the page and I didn't really understand the justification for some of the changes such as removing the graph - it seems that the various editors disagreed entirely about how this rule was meant to be calculated. I've searched for a copy of the book referred to, but can't seem to get a hold of it due to its age. I do think there is a big question mark over notability even if it isn't a hoax. ---- nonsense ferret 21:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Yeah it is a delete for me, there is insufficient material to sustain an article about whatever on earth this concept was meant to be. ---- nonsense ferret 21:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a "rule" that gives an answer which is exactly half the answer given by the well-known approximation by rectangles: the article calls it uncommon and inaccurate method of approximation, normally only reserved for teaching. It is not going to be anything actually used in the scientific literature, even if there are methods actually in use given the general name "triangular integration rule", because this "rule" gives the wrong answer by a factor of 2. It is patent nonsense. The clear signs of a hoax are: reference to a plausible sounding book, but no page number and the term turns out not to be in the book at all (ie reference is deliberately bogus); an alternate name which does not exist at all (ie deliberately bogus); and a description of a method which is just plain wrong. Deltahedron (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look by me brought up just one instance of 'triangular integration rule' and it was to do with finite element methods, nothing to do with what was stuck into this article. Dmcq (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed. This is the first edit by this person on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It won't always yield an underestimate, however those cases where it does work will be the extreme exception, based upon just getting lucky. If a professor is teaching this rule, then I would really question his right to be called a professor, and ability to teach maths, this is an extremely shoddy way of working, and a proper mathematician would know that, and refuse to teach it. Just because something is well known is a particular state, does not make it right.Martin451 (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hi there everybody; it appears my article is under a lot of heat right now. This rule is known fairly well in Wisconsin, as some Wisconsin teachers use this method to introduce their students to RRAM, LRAM, and LRAM, as I stated in the article. Could it be that this is an issue of notability, rather than an issue of legitimacy? ZariakAC (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I for one found it very interesting that you made exactly the same quite rare error as Polygonwhizard in posting your comment at the start of this discussion rather than the end - there wouldn't be any connection between you and them would there? ---- nonsense ferret 00:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about polygonwizard, but I wanted my "keep" to be at the top of the page so it could be seen first. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. In the future, I'll be sure to but the comment at the end of the discussion. ---- ZariakAC (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you are about to be blocked for sockpuppetry. How about just leaving Wikipedia alone for a year thanks and then trying again when you have something to actually contribute. It looks like you can actually write English so you may be able to contribute constructively in the future sometime. Bye. Dmcq (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well WP are generally a friendly and generous bunch of people so anyone that comes in good faith with the intention of improving their knowledge and sharing their efforts with the world for free are very welcome. There are many out there that kinda take advantage of this by trying to subvert WP to their own goals of self promotion or just generally having a laugh, as well as those who game the system by trying to manipulate the processes by less than gentlemanly means. This happens a lot, so people get a bit annoyed when they think they see it happening. It's nice to be nice to people, and the only thing worth having out of WP at the end of the day is the satisfaction of making a positive contribution and hopefully gaining the respect of people you meet along the way. Just my thought for the day. ---- nonsense ferret 01:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Striking ZariakAC's contribution as a confirmed sockpuppet. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is either a hoax, or written from a poor understanding. The rule as described will only every sum up half the intergral, i.e. it will always be a factor of two out. If that factor of 2 were added in, it would equate to the Trapezoidal rule. Section 2 states that it can only ever be used on a right sum, this is an insult to mathematics, a rule like this (if it worked) would be usable either way. Martin451 (talk) 14:05, 6 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.