Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coshc function

Coshc function

[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 concept $\operatorname {coshc} (x)=\cosh(x)/x$ is not notable. To begin, I checked the four sources cited in the article. The first, den Outer et al. [1], at one point contains ${\frac {\cosh \kappa r}{\kappa r}}$ as part of a larger equation, and that's all. The second (Körpinar [2]), third (Sönmez [3]), and fourth (ten Thije Boonkkamp et al. [4]) contain neither "coshc" nor even $\cosh x/x$ for anything in place of x. The article also formerly cited http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CoshcFunction.html which is currently a dead link and I can't confirm it ever existed. I found no other potential sources from a search. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hyperbolic function, where a brief mention of such second-tier functions can be added. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest we add Sinhc function, Tanhc function and Tanc function to this AfD. All suffer from the same lack of independent notability, and all can be included as a brief definition under the Hyperbolic function page. Pinging @David Eppstein: for an expert opinion. Owen× ☎ 14:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added these other three pages as suggested; hopefully I didn't screw up any of the technicalities on the backend. XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! No problem - I'm pinging David Eppstein about this - he was the only one who hasn't seen the update yet. Owen× ☎ 20:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. We have chosen to group our trigonometric and hyperbolic functions into bundles; for instance, we do not even have a separate article for cosine. Given that, we should not make an exception for this one function. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: while I can guess your answer, for the sake of pro-forma, can you confirm your !vote also applies to the three other functions added to the AfD since your comment? Thanks! Owen× ☎ 20:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all These border on the territory of things made up one day. The "literature" on the topic is paltry and admits as much: The hyperbolic function $\sinh(x)/x$ receives scant attention in the literature. [...] If you type “sinhc function” into Wikipedia, you get the discouraging message “Did you mean: sinc function?” [5]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's hilarious! I wonder if any of the sources referenced on the Circular definition page reference the Wikipedia article in turn. Owen× ☎ 18:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the MathWorld business, I've been keeping a list of examples where that site has been a shoddy source, particularly for names. I don't think they have very high standards; sometimes it seems that if one person said it one time, MathWorld will accept it as a term. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all. Redirects are cheap, but agree that there's little sign of separate notability for these. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]