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 merge to rational trigonometry. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norman J. Wildberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The subject of the article, an associate professor at the University of New South Wales, appears to fail WP:PROF. The subject appears to be known for a single event (WP:ONEEVENT), the introduction of so-called rational trigonometry. This subject is itself of rather dubious notability, and the notability of the former is entirely parasitic upon the notability of the latter. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into rational trigonometry. (I don't think the latter is of "dubious notability"). Michael Hardy (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Perhaps my wording "dubious notability" was poor. The article rational trigonometry only establishes notability in a rather marginal way. As far as deletion goes, I would still !vote keep for that article, since I tend to think that valid concepts should be granted more latitude than articles for persons, and I believe that policy seems to support this point of view. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to say I'm puzzled by the comment above. In the word "!vote", is the exclamation point an abbreviation of "not", as in some programming languages? And which article do you mean when you refer to "that article"? Does "more latitude" mean you be more inclined to keep them? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wildberger has other -er- idiosyncratic views than rational trigonometry, including the view that almost all integers are indescribable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no third party sources to establish notability -- article is sourced purely to Wildberger's own "views" page. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a pruned version into rational trigonometry. A Google Scholar search suggests that the subject's research is not highly cited.[1] (As an aside, I'm not sure the discussion on notoriety for a single event really applies to academics, who are often best known for a single piece of research.) Espresso Addict (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe that if this article is merged it should also include mention of Le Anh Vinh, the 2nd most prolific person on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.40.36 (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. As suggested by Michael Hardy and Espresso Addict. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2009 (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.