Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangent between two circles

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The result was the nomination was withdrawn. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tangent between two circles

This seems to me to be a very minor bit of geometry and I am not certain that it warrants its own article. However this is only a weak delete--I'd like to hear what the community thinks.TallNapoleon (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If merged, a possible appropriate merge target would be bitangent, but I don't think the current content is sufficiently encyclopedic to be worth saving. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~See Gandalf61's comment below for a better merge target. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Keep after significant improvements since the start of the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with belt problem. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or merge. I think the topic is at most marginally notable, but I am prepared to change my mind. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Marginally notable, and it looks like we have a lot of reasonable content now. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the topic may just about be notable enough for discussion somewhere, this article doesn't make sense. It talks about 2 "points of tangency", when I can see eight points in the diagram which have a line tangent to the circle at them, and I don't see the point of including C++ code for a simple calculation. --Tango (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~. What there is in the article is not great. The C++ code has to go, sources are needed, the title and some of the text is confusing or unclear, and a rename is certainly in order, perhaps even a redirect and merge. However, I don't see any argument for deletion beyond "it is kind of minor". We have lots of stubs like that. The fact that a pair of circles have four bitangents is notable enough, and the connection with the center of homothety is significant and sourced. I reckon if this were a well written ten line stub, instead of its current state, then no one would have batted an eyelid. Geometry guy 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if kept the title may need to be changed as well. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Title changed and article substantially improved. I've updated my !vote below. Geometry guy 19:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is a very important topic and is very important in the solving of advanced geometrical problems. Therefore I think it should be kept and added to. --electricRush (T C) 01:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears this is quite similar to Belt problem, as Gandalf noted. How would people feel about a merge and a redirect? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not convinced. This article is about a concept in geometry. Belt problem is about one application of that concept and several other concepts (similar triangles, arclength of a circle etc.) to solve an engineering problem. Geometry guy 07:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge with belt problem and redirect this article to b.pr. That the belt problem is about engineering (and additional facets) does not, IMO, preclude putting the mathematics underlying the problem there. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, this article is trivial and fails to be encyclopedic. It also fails to satisfy WP:N. Topology Expert (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's depressing to see how many smart mathematicians can find time to delete geometrical articles, but not to contribute to them, or even to comment on them at FAC. I think I can comment here with some authority, since I've been working actively on numerous topics in basic circle geometry, such as Steiner chain, power of a point, and radical axis. Yes, this is a minor topic, and yes, it's a retread of parts of homothetic center. (I agree with G-guy that belt problem is not a good merge, since it involves other aspects of geometry and other engineering considerations for real-life belts and pulleys.) However, the fact that even the mathematicians here couldn't find homothetic center tells me that it's wise to keep this article as a less technical version, and one that is not diluted with polygons. I recognize that the article is very bad at the moment, but I for one am willing to help Rabi Javed to make it better. Comments and contributions from other people are always welcome. Willow (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've seeded a smattering of content there. Perhaps some of you would like to pitch in? I'm sure it'd be fun and easy, especially for you. :) Rabi and I were Talking, and we decided to change the article's name to Tangent lines to circles, which you might prefer. I have to run off now, but I left you all an Easter egg there! Go in peace and delete no more — wait, is that how it goes? ;) Willow (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question/suggestion: How is this problem different from finding the homothetic center? The first part of the article doesn't make much sense to me: instead of stating a/the problem it just throws some equations in there. The article could perhaps be rewritten to deal with the more general tangency problem of Apollonius (from the 2nd reference), in which case it won't be not the same (in general) as finding the homothetic center. VG ☎ 13:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This article has been transformed thanks to the intervention of Willow. Can I remind fellow editors that we don't delete articles because their content is a mess. Particular not where an inexperienced editor acting in good faith is involved. With luck, Willow's kindness has not only saved an article, but retained a contributor. Geometry guy 19:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "Geometry guy". Michael Hardy (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn, per all the changes made by Willow. The article is now much broader, far more clearly notable, and in general drastically improved. Amazing job! TallNapoleon (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2008 (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.