Testwiki:Articles for deletion/Clackson scroll formula

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 redirect to Archimedean spiral. Content was merged so history must be preserved for attribution purposes. T. Canens (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Clackson scroll formula

Template:La – (View logTemplate:• Template:Plainlink)

(Template:Find sources)

Per the talk page, one source is a primary source and the other is non-reputable, therefore notability is not asserted. Moreover, a detailed interest search doesn't show any such equation or principal, therefore I think this is a made-up concept. Wizard191 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - I can find nothing to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per the above, unless better sources are provided within the next few days.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of notability. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: Apparently a neologism, but the formula might be mentioned as an estimate for the length of an Archimedean spiral.--RDBury (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Archimedean spiral - I have already merged the text into that article. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's a good idea, because, as far as I can tell, the equation is made up. So unless you can find a real confirmable reference, I think you are propagating a fallacy. Wizard191 (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • If as far as you can tell, it's just "made up" and a "fallacy", then I suggest you're not very good at math. All you need to do is check the derivation that's given in the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The problem here is not the mathematical correctness but the notability of the term "clarkson sacroll formula". A redirect makes only sense if the term is actually mentioned in the target article and if there's sufficient evidence that the term is established/used/somewhat known. The current sources are not sufficuent evidence.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep if reputable secondary sources can be found. I'm surprised that nothing on the length of the Archimedean spiral can be found in that article (until this estimate was added). I'd have guessed an exact formula would appear (whether "closed-form" or not I won't guess right now). That a simple estimate originated out of a need arising in a field other than pure geometry is interesting. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment via Google Books I find this one containing the phrase "Clackson scroll formula":

Title: Metalworking: Metal, Forge, Engraving, Cladding, Sintering, Screw, Metalworking, Parts Cleaning, Powder Metallurgy, Rivet, Spray Forming

Author: Books, LLC

Publisher: General Books, 2010

Template:ISBN, 9781156531433

Length 504 pages

And also this:

Title: Spirals: Logarithmic Spiral, Ulam Spiral, Archimedean Spiral, Spiral, Euler Spiral, Spiral, Track Transition Curve, Rhumb Line

Author Books, LLC

Editor Books, LLC

Publisher: General Books, 2010

Template:ISBN, 9781155647166

Length 112 pages

Michael Hardy (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael Hardy, note that both books are written by "Books, LLC", which commonly copies the text from Wikipedia in their books. See: [1]. Also, your the unreferenced derivation of the equation equates to original research, which doesn't hold up for notability purposes. Wizard191 (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

My derivation? When did I write any derivation? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

...and when a derivation is so simple that any high-school student can check it in a minute, does that come under the OR rule? I think there's been some discussion of this before. If I multiply 777 by 286 and report that I got 222,222, and it happens by some freak chance that no one has ever multiplied that exact pair of numbers before, am I violating the OR rule? If so, lots of articles are in trouble. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

MathWorld has the exact formula and it's easy to find in other sources. I'm a bit leery of using the GBooks sources as references since they're 'no preview'. For all I know they're just reprinting the material from Wikipedia.--RDBury (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, a few minutes after commenting above I added to the integral of secant cubed article that one of the applications of that integral is to the arc length of the Archimedean spiral. It's pretty easy to derive. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Although this formula is not the exact volume, it's closer to the exact value than what seems to be suggested by the argument give by Ryan Reich on the article's talk page. If one had concentric circles, rather than a spiral, and s is the distance between any two adjacent ones, then the total area would be

$2\pi s+4\pi s+6\pi s+\cdots +2n\pi s=2\pi s\frac{n(n+1)}{2}=\pi s(n^2+n).$

But it's not concentric circles. Each time the spiral winds around once the radius increases by s. If we therefore approximate the length by the amount half-way between the lengths of two circles, with radii differing by s, then for the area we get

$\pi s+3\pi s+5\pi s+7\pi s+\cdots +(2n-1)\pi s=\pi s{n}^2,$

which is just what Clackson's formula gives. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep on the basis of mIchael Hardy;s discussion, which I expect he will add to the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • But how do we know that this equation is properly known as the "clackson scroll formula"? Maybe its properly called something else? My point is that we have nothing more than original research right now, that we can confirm is mathematically correct. How do we even know that it's notable or even empirically used anywhere? Wizard191 (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't and the discussion regarding mathematical correctness/prorperties is imho missing the point. There was never an issue regarding the math but only regarding the notability of the name "clarkson formula", i. e. whether it can be considered an at least somewhat established term or not. So far we are still lacking sufficient references for that. The 2 references in the article are not good enough (as pointed out in the original AfD) and the 2 books found via google books might be good enough, if somebody gets a chance to take a closer look to see what's actually written in them, but simply having them listed as a result in a google book search is not good enough either.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment If there's something reasonably called a "scroll formula" and it's clearly due to someone named Clackson, is that enough reason why an article about it should be called "Clackson's scroll formula" or "Clackson scroll formula" (presumably preceded by the definite article when used in a sentence), or is it necessary that particular name, "the Clackson scroll formula" be in widespread standard use within the community of those who know the formula? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Imho the former case alone might not be good enough and currently we don't really have reliable evidence for that. I don't think a widespread use is necessarily required, but i'd say some use within a community is required and somebody not particularly notable calling it (once) by that name in some not particularly notable article or publication is definitely not enough. But that's all we have with the references in the article so far. Moreover none of the involved here has actually seen any of the discussed sources first hand, so strictly speaking we couldn't even exclude a smart fake for sure.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment

• S.G. Clackson, "The Trinity Church Screen", SCAT Report 1981
• ^ "MSC Craft-Based Training – Forging and Hand Skills

These two things are cited. What are they? What is SCAT and what is MSC? Can they be found in some library? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - I can find no evidence of the Clackson Scroll formula being used for estimating requirements for stock in blacksmithing. Books LLC simply copies wikipedia (see this discussion) and as such is not a reliable source. The correctness of any formula is rather irrelevant. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2010 (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.