Testwiki:Articles for deletion/Calyx (mathematics)

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Calyx (mathematics)

Template:La (delete) – (View log)

No evidence that surface is notable, or a commonly used term for the surface. No entry on MathWorld Jeodesic (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a notable geometric surface. See, for example, this article on the significance of calyx surfaces in understanding singularity-related concepts.Majoreditor (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm striking my recommendation to keep based on Arcfrk's input. This term may be a neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've added a reference to that review in the article and notified the mathematics WikiProject. Hopefully that will shed more light on whether this surface is notable. Geometry guy 19:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. We have essentially a single source for the term and concept: Herwig Hauser from the Institut für Mathematik at the University of Innsbruck. The gallery of algebraic surfaces linked to from the References section is the same as the "Bildergalerie" from his home page, and he is one of the authors of the one other reference, the book review. If this is as notable as the other surfaces from the gallery such as the Buggle, Crixxi, Dattel, Dullo, Gupf, Octdong and Plop, it is NOT.  --Lambiam 19:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Not to mention their "Cube" $x^6+y^6+z^6=1$, which isn't cubical. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That's what bothers me about the source. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I also only found references connected with Herwig Hauser. The name appears to be derived from the shape of flowers, and most Google searches get a lot of flower references, so it is hard to find mathematical references. Of course this proves nothing! Geometry guy 19:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The name is nonstandard, and it's doubtful that such a special surface would have another standard name. There is one article in MathSciNet and five in Zbl/JFM database that mention "calyx", none of them in this context (five deal with biology and one, by F.W.Neumann in 1869, purports to attach names of flowers to certain cubic curves). Arcfrk (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I don't have access to MathSciNet or Zbl/JFM database. If that's what they show then the term is likely a neologism. I am retracting my opinion to keep. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome! Electronic Research Archive for Mathematics Jahrbuch Database is free, as far as I could tell, but only covers the period until 1942. As a bonus, it has many links to the original papers themselves. Arcfrk (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a neologism. If the term gains currency among mainstream mathematicians, an article of this quality could be created in a matter of minute. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete the name is a neologism and I'm not convinced the surface itself is of any particular note. As the surface contains a cuspidal edge it has infinite co-dimension, hence falling outside of the main classification of singular surfaces. It also does not appear to fall in families where cuspidal edges would normally occur. My hunch is that the reason it appeared in the paper above is that it is a particular awkward beast providing a good example for resolution algorithms to cope with. --Salix alba (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this article per the above. It could be given as an example in algebraic surface, though. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I think it is starting to snow here :-) Geometry guy 22:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - appears to be a nonce word, used only by a small set of people, and the article has no potential for expansion or proper context. I also concur with other delete rationales above. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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.