Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Median of the trapezoid theorem

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 Trapezoid#Midsegment and heigh. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Median of the trapezoid theorem

[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)

Nominated at incorrect venue (RfD) by Dedhert.Jr with rationale "An article might not have notability for having its own article, and possibly to be deleted instead." — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 08:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 08:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a recently promoted draft; the draft version was very badly sourced, and what you see instead as the nominated version is my attempt at cutting back the excessive calculations and proofs and providing adequate sourcing for it. I used 19th-century mathematics textbooks as sources, not because this is 19th-century mathematics, but because those are easier to use in finding online but reliable sourcing for basic and obvious statements in mathematics. The draft author disagreed with my cuts but unfortunately has been temporarily blocked for incivility so cannot yet comment here. Some of this material is already present at Trapezoid#Midsegment and height but with even less detail and worse sourcing (MathWorld). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My intended is already explained below, @David Eppstein. I am planning to redirect the theorem into the article. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may think you explained your intent clearly but it was not clear to me. I do not think that replacing the content currently in the nominated article by a pointer to a worse exposition of the same material, with worse sources, buried in the middle of the trapezoid article, is an improvement. In any case by initiating this AfD you have already moved past the point where deciding on your own to perform WP:BLAR would be ok; instead, we have to wait for the outcome of the discussion to determine what to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the original nominator Dedhert.Jr agrees the new version is sufficient to meet notability I will gladly withdraw as a Speedy Keep. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 09:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC) oops, ineligible for speedy keep since it was a procedural nomination — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 09:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VolatileAnomaly It was intended to redirect the article. What I meant "possibly to be deleted instead" is when the article has fewer sources supporting it and too short content, it will be deleted, so the only option is to redirect to the article Trapezoid. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dedhert.Jr do you think there’s any content worth saving in the current version of the article? If so, a merge could be appropriate. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 16:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volatile and Dedhert, can you please explain why a stub-length article with three book sources and with all content footnoted to all three source has too few sources for its content and why you think that means it should be deleted? How many sources would not be too few for this length? See also WP:Citation overkill. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral towards the outcome, just wanted to hear some clarification from Dedhert because I’m not sure what outcome they desire for the article (whether BLARed or Merged or something else). — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 18:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VolatileAnomaly I think I will retract this proposal since some of the users prefer to preserve it. Guess I have no comments on this. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr as this was a procedural nomination due to an incorrect venue, I can't withdraw this nomination. As David Eppstein mentioned, we'll have to wait for the outcome. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 04:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see then. My bad. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SteveLosive, the creator of this article, has responded on their talk page: A theorem about a trapezoid shouldn't be included with the Trapezoid article because that's an article about the shape in general. The Pythagorean Theorem isn't merged with the Triangle article. The Median of the Trapezoid theorem is meant to be purely metric and it's about finding the length of the median through a formula. It's a separate study and it even includes finding the median of a parallelogram that is within a trapezoid. It's an extensive topic and that theorem has proofs and studies. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 19:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear user:David Eppstein, could you explain this edit where you deleted my proof ("Construction proof") without giving an explanation? Summer ^talk 15:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did give an explanation in the edit summary. It was unsourced. WP:NOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still deleted it after I've cited the proof. I just hope you don't delete it again after @VolatileAnomaly provided a valid source just like how someone who actually cares would. Also, regarding Coordinate Geometry Proof; just because you did a Ctrl+F and searched for "Trapezoid" then couldn't find any, doesn't mean it's not related. Seriously, please stop. SteveLosive (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge – covering this topic at Trapezoid § Midsegment and height seems sufficient. If need-be the discussion can be expanded there (sourcing, pictures, etc. can be improved there), but we don't need to include proofs of every geometry proposition in Wikipedia. I don't think this particular metric identity is independently notable or rich enough in connections to make a high quality article about, and readers are better served by improvements to Trapezoid. If the content expands beyond the capacity of Trapezoid to accommodate it, I would recommend making an article titled Midsegment of a trapezoid which could discuss other aspects and connections relevant to the midsegment, rather than having an article focused exclusively on this particular identity. –jacobolus (t) 17:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only the bare statement of the theorem, not the elaboration and proof of the long version(s) of the elaborated article. Not independently notable and SteveLosive's edit warring to repeatedly reinstate their bad version of the article with unsourced material, likely-AI-written material, and bad sources (unreliable web pages that do not even mention trapezoids and textbooks without specific page numbers) is not helping. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Every part of the article is now meticulously cited. Had you exercised even a modicum of diligence in reviewing the revisions, you would have noticed this.
2. I appreciate the inadvertent commendation of my writing prowess by likening it to "AI-writing." Flawless articulation is, after all, indistinguishable from machine precision. May you one day ascend to such a level of linguistic refinement, one unmarred by the clumsy missteps that so evidently plague your own discourse.
3. You must decide, David: is it "unsourced," or are the sources merely "bad"? These are mutually exclusive assertions, and I suggest you settle on a single fallacy before proceeding.
4. Your fixation on an explicit mention of "trapezoids" is an exercise in intellectual laziness. Allow me to simplify: citing a paper on rectangles in an article about squares does not nullify its relevance. I trust you can extrapolate from this rudimentary analogy.
5. Lastly, I have no intention of allowing you to cannibalize my work, superficially rephrase it, employ your bespoke search methodologies to retrofit sources, and then christen it with an eponymous title, much as you did with Ccalmen’s work before masquerading it as “Eppstein’s algorithm.”
SteveLosive (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have named nothing "Eppstein's algorithm"; any such names were bestowed by other people. And I have no idea who or what you are referring to by "Ccalmen".

A source not mentioning trapezoids is very much relevant to the question of whether it is a valid source for claims that are specifically about trapezoids. If the claims can be stated in a more general way that better fits the source, then this is not really the article in which those claims belong. To put it another way, a source saying that the study of the properties of quadrilaterals is important is a bad source for a claim that this specific property of trapezoids is important; it doesn't logically follow.

As for the rest: I think you also need to read WP:OWN, because you are acting very much as if you do not understand it. Nothing here is or should be your work: if you think you are making original contributions to the subject, or that other editors ought to respect the integrity of your writing and leave it unchanged, then you are on the wrong web site. The existence of 19th-century sources strongly suggests that belief in originality of this material is mistaken. (This is the kind of thing that could have been in Euclid, but apparently wasn't). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ccalmen's K shortest path routing that you later on called Eppstein's algorithm on your own Wikipedia article.

Thing is I do understand WP:OWN, but do you? Also, despite having no ownership over what you publish / edit on Wikipedia, it is still very unethical to do what you do.

Above all that, your "contributions" to Median of the trapezoid theorem were objectively vandalizing the article, and I simply keep an eye on it because of my passion towards the topic, nothing more, nothing less.

P.S. Please be responsible and don't say things like "any such names were bestowed by other people", it's in your very own article, it's under your name, then it's your responsibility. Since you have so much time ruining other articles, maybe you should've focused on "your" article. Furthermore, it's funny to me how you talk about WP:OWN while claiming ownership of an article, saying "my Wikipedia article" instead of "a Wikipedia article about me" to acknowledge the "other people" you mentioned. SteveLosive (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be difficult to parse through the many layers of confusion here but just to start with the most basic: the article David Eppstein is a biography of the person David Eppstein, written by other people. (David has made a very small number of edits to it, mostly reverting vandalism, and none since June 2012.) The algorithm that people call "Eppstein's algorithm" was published in 1998. All edits to Wikipedia by User:Ccalmen happened in December 2012, and the version of the Wikipedia article K shortest path routing as written by Ccalmen correctly attributed work to the people who did it (this is the version of the article they wrote). The redirect page Eppstein's algorithm was not created by David Eppstein and has never been edited by him. Are there any other misconceptions I can help you with? JBL (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, but I was just calling out David Eppstein for his alleged hypocrisy. SteveLosive (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is English your native language? You are the (only) person alleging hypocrisy, are the substantive basis of your allegation is hopelessly confused. --JBL (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JBL's explanation above (re the David Eppstein article) is clear and informative, and it plainly and correctly refutes much of what SteveLosive was asserting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. I know I am the (only) person doing so, but it's somewhat personal. Read the entirety of my talk page if you want more context. SteveLosive (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is an utter trainwreck. Can folks please clarify whether the material is acceptable and whether there's a preferred location that isn't here, or what they desire to help this decision reach a consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad about this because a lot of people have obviously spent a lot of time on this, but my feeling is currently: Merge the diagram that shows visually what the median looks like, into Trapezoid#Midsegment_and_height (visual pictures explaining geometrical concepts are really useful to visual readers), but delete the current article (or make it a redirect if you want). David Eppstein's cut-down version doesn't contain anything more than is in the main Trapezoid article, so there's no point to it. The current longer version differs principally from the short by containing two proofs and a historical context section. The historical context basically states the obvious, that four-sided figures have been important to geometry for a long time, something that belongs in the main trapezoid article as it applies to every aspect of trapezoids, not just the median. The coordinate proof just states that if you work out the coordinates using schoolkid maths, the middle is the average of the top and bottom, and leaps straight to the result, so I'm not sure what reader it would actually help. The proof as a corollary of the mid-point theorem is currently sourced to a book review, which says of the intended source: "There is no apparent reason why this book should either have been written or be read: it falls surprisingly below its authors' usual standard. Even the diagrams are slovenly." a situation that doesn't inspire confidence (the book would have cost you 12 shillings and sixpence back then, too - that's what "12s. 6d." means). So if this proof is to be kept, I'd urge editors wanting it kept to find a better source. Elemimele (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree with you! I also admire your critical yet constructive take.

The formula, the equations, and diagram(s) should be kept for visual readers as well as how they help define the theorem in general.

The historical context should be merged, as I previously added it as a filler to make the article more rich with information.

As for the proof, I'm not the original editor of it, but I did my best finding a source for it. Thing is, I published this article as a stub and it still is a stub, it's technically not anywhere near complete. I also might disagree on merging it due to it being a theorem. Usually every theorem needs its proofs and it could include things not directly linked/related to trapezoids.

Is it fit to be a separate article? Not yet.

Does it need more work to make it bigger? Absolutely.

Should it be entirely merged? I don't think that's a good idea, but it's not the worst either. SteveLosive (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is never a justification for making an article "bigger" when its central point is mere bluster, and the rest of it just duplicates another article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're a biology guy, so don't go around calling well-founded mathematical theorems "mere bluster" as it just makes you lose credibility. I get that you like David and you're being defensive and all, but please don't add salt to the wound. Plus, you should read WP:STUB as well as the article we're talking about and understand it before you decide to give your "very useful" opinion. SteveLosive (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SteveLosive you are about to lose access to edit this discussion. Please step back, and stop casting aspersions or you will be blocked. This is a final warning Star Mississippi 21:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate my position without a new bold !vote: I believe that the basic statement that the midsegment is the average of the sides should be stated in the trapezoid article as it already was, with better sources than it was. I don't see a need for a separate article, I don't see a need for providing proofs, and I don't see a need for a paragraph of bluster about how quadrilaterals are important. So the only things potentially worth saving from the nominated article are its sources and its lead image. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, there is nothing in this article that justifies a separate article from Trapezoid, specially per David Eppstein's clear explanations above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trapezoid#Midsegment_and_height: From the incorrect venue nomination, to the edit warring, heated comments, and aspersions cast, I agree with Star Mississippi that this whole nomination has been a trainwreck to the point where I almost feel the need to apologize for kickstarting this mess. I initially wanted to stay neutral, but now I will make a bolded !vote per above to try and put things to rest. Yes, I added the corollary proof with a source that David Eppstein provided, but now I'm starting to see that it doesn't offer much to the topic. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 02:49, 14 March 2025 (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.