Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dao's six point circle

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. Secret ^account 16:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dao's six point circle

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

Listed as G4, but no admin seems to have been willing to speedy it for several days. Listed here for discussion. I have no personal opinion. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dao six-point circle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dao–Moses circle, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dao's theorem. According to signatures he left on my talk page, the article creator is Dao himself, and this appears to be part of a pattern of promoting his own work. He has also created Dao's theorem, Dao's eight circles problem, Dao's six circumcenter theorem, Dao–Moses circle (deleted after AfD), and Dao six-point circle (deleted after AfD), as well as several other articles on related geometric constructions that he has not given his own name to. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the original motivation of Mr. Dao was a natural human trait, it is not relevant to the question of whether the articles should be retained; especially since Mr. Dao is now aware that Wikipedia discourages people from creating articles about one's own work (which, you must agree, is quite unlike the spirit of most other sites out there). And, as you note, he has contributed articles that are NOT about his own work, although they may be connected to it.
I have no connection to Mr. Dao, and did not know of his existence until he wrote to me asking to defend the article. I do not see what is wrong with that, since editors who could vote to retain those articles are unlikely see the deletion proposal otherwise. (On the other hand, listing an article in the AfD brings the proposal to the attention of editors who are biased towards deletion.)
I don't know whether there were prior versions of the articles Dao's eight circles problem and Dao's six circumcenter theorem; I created those myself over the last few days, from sections of Dao's theorem. (I had proposed doing so in its AfD entry, and no one objected.) I also created Dao's six point circle from the same source, unaware that Dao six-point circle (note the spelling) had been created and deleted previously.
About the deletion proposal, the first question that should be asked is: is Wikipedia better with those articles, or without them? To me that answer is obvious. It would have been preferable for us if Mr. Dao had spent the effort on some other "more notable" topic; but since the articles are already written, correct, timeless, sourced, and of world-wide interest, why delete them?
And then there is the question of what the over-zealous deletion of articles for "non-notability" is doing to Wikipedia. Sadly, while Wikipedia is painfully aware of the decline of its corps of editors, no one in charge seems willing to admit the causes -- which include its article deletion process.
On a lower level, some of the problems in those articles that were used to justify their prior deletion do not apply anymore. The list of references has been expanded and the style and grammar are hopefully closer to Wikipedia's standards. The community that is interested in those problems seems to have recognized Mr. Dao's contributions, and (as far as I know) is was them, not Mr. Dao, who began to refer to his theorems by his name. They do not seem to be less worthy of inclusion than Five circles theorem (which was created long ago). And, last but not least, I find those results nice indeed.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete still not notable, only a handful of months since its last deletion. Can't compare it to the previous version to see whether G4 is justified but the problem's not the quality of the article but the inherent non-notability of one of thousands of such constructions.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. David Eppstein, I am Dao Thanh Oai, as You know why formerly Dao six-point circle be delete ? because It is not appear in a journal. But now Dao's six point circle appear in a journal, appear in Kimberling center, appear in Cut the knot, appear in some another web site, with three independent proofs and this is nice property of the centroid and median of a triangle. (Please) You should remember that I don't name a theorem after my name, but I name it from title of some paper and title of some another website. I don't know why Dr. David Eppstein want delete Dao six-point circle? because only reason I wrote this paper (Where I did not intentionally violate)? Note that, if I know that wiki don't want I write about my result. I will never wrote them, and I also never said to You that I am Đào Thanh Oai on your talk page and on deletion of Dao's theorem. Original I wrote Dao six-point circle, Dao–Moses circle and Dao's theorem because I want to share. Why I want share? because they are nice (as you know).

Dear Friends, I am Dao Thanh Oai, my English is not good, but I try wrote what I think to You.

1-About Dao six-point circle please click X(5569)= Center of the Dao six point circle_at Kimberling center and Dao's six point circle at cut the knot. Why I posted Dao six-point circle because my friend said to me that Kimberling center is cite source for another dictionary, so I posted. Why I posted with name: Dao's six point circle ? Because two web sites above (cut the knot, and Kimberling center) wrote this with title Dao's six point circle so I rewrote with the same title. And did you think I can wrote the page with another title? Similarly, why I wrote Dao–Moses circle? Because I see Parry circle and Lester circle, they are circles through triangle centers, where Parry circle is circle pass through 7 triangle centers, and Lester circle is circle pass through 4 triangle center. But Dao–Moses circle are pair circles through 10 triangle centers of Kimberling center please click X(5607) = CENTER OF 1st POHOATA-DAO-MOSES CIRCLE and Kimberling center please click X(5608) = CENTER OF 1st POHOATA-DAO-MOSES CIRCLE.(Note that that time X(5607), and X(5608) Dr. Kimberling name is Dao-Moses circle, but now he name Pohoata-Dao-Moses circle).

2-As You know, My english not good, so I don't read to know that Wiki don't want I wrote for my result, until to recently(now) I wrote Dao's theorem. I read the comment so I know that wiki don't want I wrote my result. So I am really not want promotion my result, but original I really want to share this result to everybody because I see it is nice and true. Why I said it is nice and true? because Dao six-point circle and Dao–Moses circle similarly Lester circle Parry circle and van Lamoen circle.

3-But now Dao's six point circle appear in a journal, appear in Kimberling center, appear in Cut the knot, appear in some another web sites, with three independent proofs and this is nice property of the centroid and median of a triangle and rewrote by Dr. Jorge Stolfi, now we should keep or delete with these reasons above?--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Mr Dao I want to bring to your notice that Wikipedia keep articles on the basis of notability. I can't see the significant coverages to reliable sources that establish the subject notability. The fact that it appears in one or two journals has not made it notable. Please kindly wait until your work is notable and a wikipedian with no WP:COI will write about it here. Big thanks to DGG for initiating this discussion Wikicology (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: There are 1097 triangle centers of Kimberling center part 4, there are 10 circles after name of person, in 10 circles have only Dao's six point circle have three independent proofs and appear in a journal and some web sites. Detail see talk page. The Dao's six point circle similarly van Lamoen circle. More important this result is nice propery of the centroid and medians of any triangle. So I Ok with you edit with another name, no name after Dao, but should keep.--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear Wikicology and Gene93k, could you please care to address my points? At least, (1) I don't have a COI here, I think the article should stay, and I am (and was) willing to invest some of my time to bring it up to Wikipedia standards of style. (2) Will this article make Wikipedia better or worse, and why? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Stolfi, I have no idea of why you feel that you have no WP:COI. Your comment above until he wrote to me asking to defend the article suggest a WP:COI. Also this your comment I don't know whether there were prior versions of the articles Dao's eight circles problem and Dao's six circumcenter theorem; I created those myself over the last few days, from sections of Dao's theorem is also an indication. However, the WP:COI is not even the point and I have no business with that. My major concern is on the notability of the subject. I want to believe that you are familiar with our policy and that wikipedia keep articles on the basis of notability. The subject of the article is yet to be notable enough to merit an article here.

On your question above from your comment, And then there is the question of what the over-zealous deletion of articles for "non-notability" is doing to Wikipedia; the answer to that is simple! Let me start with the fact that millions of readers read wikipedia daily and they often trust our informations. On this note, if wikipedia doesn't keep article on the basis of notability then it is very easy to mislead wikipedia readers because anyone can write about something that does not even exist for people to read which will invariably mislead them. Let me stop with the fact that Mr Dao need to be patient for his work to be notable and someone with no WP:COI will write about it here. Wikicology (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikicology, "conflict of interest" means having any personal involvement with the subject that would induce the editor to work against Wikipedia's goals. I certainly do not have that. Working on an article, or defending it against deletion, does not create a conflict of interest, any more than voting for its deletion does.
On the other hand, yes, I confess that I am not happy to see a hour of so of my work being thrown away, just because of a rule that I did not agree to and that I believe has been harming Wikpedia since 2006. But if that is "conflict of interest", then no editor is free from it...
I still would like to know what precisely is the harm that Dao's six point circle does to Wikipedia. I understand that Wikipedia must not have incorrect or poorly written articles. I understand that it should not have articles on original research or non-existent topics, or statements that cannot be verified, or topics that are of interest only to a small local community. I understand that it should not have biased articles that would amount to personal or corporate advertisement, religious proselitizing, political indoctrination, etc.. I even understand that editors should be encouraged to improve important articles, rather than writing articles on topics of minor importance (like 1938–39 Stoke City F.C. season). Yet none of those arguments applies to this article; and they do not imply that an article like it, once it has been written, is so harmful to Wikipedia that it must be deleted. Again, why? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely understand how you feel to see your work been thrown out but I still want you to understand that the notabilty criteria is quiet important as well. The problem is not about the work or mr. Dao but the notability of the subject. The work may seemed notable and important to mr Dao but the work has not gain enough significant coverages to WP:RS, needed to be encyclopedic. I wish we could keep it but certainly not yet time. In addition, am not happy to see your effort been wasted just like that but don't let it bothers you. Wikicology (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage in sources that are both reliable (web pages and forums don't count) and secondary (independent of the creator of the topic). I don't think we should have articles on all 6000 or so centers in Kimberling's list, only the more important of them, and I don't see anything to distinguish this one from the others. In addition, the only source we have that looks reliably published is by Dao himself. And (although I believe Stolfi to be free of COI per the discussion above) the pattern of self-promotion by Dao is troubling to me, and I think not something to be encouraged. Finally, creating an article on a subject already deleted by AfD recently, with no new developments that would make it significantly more notable, is also a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David, I agree that Wikipedia is not expected to carry articles on all the 6000 centers; just as it is not expected to have articles on all the millions of chemical compounds, genes, microorganisms, churches, streets, metro stations, football players, etc.. But if an editor wishes to write an article on any one of those topics, and its facts are all attested by independent sources, and the article contents passes all the criteria of style, timelessness, global interest, etc., what is the advantage of deleting it? (I hope it is not some vague desire to uniformize Wikipedia's depth of covereage. Such a goal is unobtainable, and all attempts to achieve it that I have witnessed, in various fields, have been much worse than fruitless.)
As for the Dao's six point circle article having been deleted before: as I explained, I was not aware of that fact (otherwise I would have appealed the deletion instead of recreating it), and the sources have grown since then.
As for the "self-promotion" issue, Mr. Dao is now aware of the COI issue and accepts the restriction.
Finally, as for the lack of references: indeed, the article does not strictly satisfy the numerical rules. Yet, the references given leave no doubt in my mind that (a) the claim is correct, and (b) the name is accepted by the community (and was not given by Mr. Dao himself). Those points place this article above a million or more other articles that are tolerated, and even satisfy the numerical criteria. I am sure that the article will probably satisfy those criteria itself in a couple of years. What is then the point of deleting it now, if it will be acceptable eventually -- without changing a comma in the text or title? Can't we just leave the article there for now, with a comment on the talk page that it needs more formal references?
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Dear Jorge Stolfi and Friends,

Notable or not notable, nice or not nice in your idea. I am Thank to dear Jorge Stolfi very much for his works and his helping. I only want keep this becasaus it is nice property of the centroid and median lines. I don't want keep because the result is my result, or after my name. So we should delete this result as a independent pages. I think should add this result as property of the centroid and median line as a remark, don't write with name Dao's six point circle. Could you write direct at median or the centroid of a triangle pages that:

Let Ab be the center of the circle through A and tangent at the centroid G to AG. Define cyclically Ac, Bc, Ba, Ca, Cb. The six points Ab, Ac, Bc, Ba, Ca, Cb are concyclic. 1 2 3

Dear all Friend, what do you think about last comment above?--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That has not address the concerns. It has not solve the problem of notability in anyway because WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Wikicology (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear Wikicology, Maybe I think you note to the notability but You don't note to the result. But I think you shouldn't note to notability and You should note to this result. You should only known the result. if you want to know who is the first person proposed this result, who prove this result? If you want to know that you should click: Advanced Plane Geometry with signature of the author proposed is Dao Thanh Oai; ETC Dr. Clark Kimberling comfirm for Dao Thanh Oai ; ijgeometry journal with signature of the author of the paper is Dao Thanh Oai. Now who is Dao Thanh Oai? I think detail don't important, only need know there a person propose and proof this problem with the same signature is Dao Thanh Oai, and Kimberling center confirm Dao Thanh Oai. You need more anything? Please let me kown what you think about this comment.--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Eppstein. -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein and per Wikicology. Dr David Eppstein said that delete because WP can not publish all ETC(Kimberling center) 6000 points. Yes OK. but keep because:

*First reason- The article is not wrote base only Kimberling center. This circle publish in a journal, and ETC and some another websites with three independent proofs, this circles is nice property of median and the centroid of a triangle, and similar with van Lamoen circle

*Secon reason- This circle appear in part 4 of Kimberling center. Now Kimberling have about 1100 triangle centers of part 4 but only this circles publish in a journal with three independent proofs(so may this circle dissimilar with 1100 another triangle centers of Kimberling center). More than 1000 triangle center no appear in a journal, and no have synthetic proof.

*Third reason-Subject of the article is not fail WP:GNG, I show that above.

*WP write every thing. And Keep rather than delete.--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2014 (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.