Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack (geometry)

Jack (geometry)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This appears to be a random collection of references that have separately used the title term inconsistently to refer to different shapes, with no depth of content beyond nomenclature. It is more about the name than any one shape, violating WP:NOTDICT. There is no evidence that there is a significant body of geometric research on a single specific shape with this name. My proposed deletion saying the same thing was removed without comment or improvement by the article creator. To which I would add that, to the extent the article is about computer modeling of the Knucklebones pieces, it is not separately notable, does not warrant a separate article, and the title term should not even be redirected to Knucklebones, because it is not an article-worthy topic in geometry any more than computer graphic modeling of any other physical object in the world. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one into the other: either Knucklebones into Jack (geometry), or vice-versa, per WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT; preserving any of this cruft by merging would just add text to a different article that would deserve to be removed. XOR'easter (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can understand the motivation behind the article; it is a semi well-known model in the demoscene community. But this CG and geometrical construct is not nearly as famous as say, the Utah teapot, and does not have the support of multiple in-depth reliable sources as a topic in itself. The article has a good bit of synthesis, too. As this point, it fails WP:GNG. I wouldn't be opposed to a well-referenced sentence or two in Knucklebones, but a merge of the current content won't fly from a verification and due weight point of view. Hence delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

> different shapes

It's always the same general shape. There are some details that are sometimes omitted, so there's some variance.

> There is no evidence that there is a significant body of geometric research

That is not a requirement for a wikipedia article. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK

> My proposed deletion was removed without improvement

Incorrect? WP:AGF I improved the article in the same change. The note you added said "You may remove this message if you improve the article." Cgbuff (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]