Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthogons and design

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. While it appeared to be well cited at first glance, the references available contained no discussion of "orthogons". This rather damning flaw in the article was not addressed by the Keep voters. Given the strength of the delete arguments, I see no option other than to close "Delete". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orthogons and design

There are zero reliable sources to support the asserted topic of this article; in English, orthogon is either not a word, a neologism, an archsism for rectangle, or a bad translation of rectangle from the German, that's all. The editor who created the article is likely [email protected], a site referenced for details in the article, a clear case of WP:COI, and a non-topic. If there's any content here from reliable sources, it can easily be integrated into dynamic symmetry and/or root rectangle. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Valriejensen1 has moved the page to Orthogons & Design. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge – (as nominator). The only thing that looks like an actual source is the 1956 Wersin book. If the concept were notable, we'd expect to find some mention of it. There are about 50 or so books that mention Wersin's book, but none of them mention "orthogon"; who made up this new term from it? Can't tell. Probably vj, our author. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources for use of the word "orthogon" in this context have been added and any possible conflict of interest deleted. These edits should address possible concerns. The article provides details from a variety of sources about a set of design templates that are classified by a variety of terms (harmonic rectangles, dynamic symmetry, root rectangles, golden rectangle, sacred geometry, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valriejensen1 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Valriejensen1 (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Although the term may not be readily accessed via the internet, the term "orthogon" in reference to these specific group of rectangles (by Von Wersin) can be verified as not originating from the article's author. This website in German may help to clarify concerns: [1] Valriejensen1 (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OED defines "orthogon" as a right-angled triangle and Wiktionary agrees here. As far as I can tell, only Von Wersin uses the term in a different sense. If the Von Wersin book is notable, then an article about the book could mention this unusual usage of orthogon, but this terminology is not sufficiently notable for its own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"orthogon" can't mean triangle, ortho is straight, and gon means angle. Besides, the Webster dictionary and CURTIS, Thomas, The London Encyclopaedia, 1829, pp. 356, agrees that it is a figure with 4 sides and right angles.--20-dude (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Root rectangle, redirect orthogon to rectangle as this is the common meaning of the term. The orthogon talk page has useful discussion on this deletion debate. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Webster (MICRA_ uses it for "a rectangular figure" with no claim for archaic. If improper COI naterial is edited out (as appears the case) there is no cause for deletion. Collect (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for background, this comment from User:Collect should probably be interpreted as WP:STALKING me, as we're engaged in a dispute elsewhere and he has no relevant history in this area. Dicklyon (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this --- I have now commented on well over a hundred XfD issues, my background is in physics and applied mathematics, and I have not the slightest interest in stalking anyone at all. Before making accusations, you might wish to look at facts. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My "probably" was based on my impression that your involvement was pretty much all in politics-related articles; I had not seen you in math-related articles, such golden ratio, golden rectangle, root rectangle, dynamic symmetry, and such, that this concept is said to relate to, and on which I have tons of editing experience. Your keep didn't sound sincere, since it missed the point that the article topic and content are largely unrelated to the dictionary definition you cite. Your not seeing any cause for deletion is quite possible, I admit, but it sounded more like you just hassling me. Forgive me if I called it wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the improper material is edited out, only a dictionary definition remains, which is a cause for deletion per WP:NOTDICT. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable if Wersin's book is the only source; otherwise the article should be about the book (see Gandalf's comment). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are a specific set of rectangles that are directly referred to as "orthogons" (or die Orthogone--which is German for "the orthogons")in the title of Von Wersin's book. Information about how these constructs are applied in art and design is likely more available in Europe, particularly in German texts. Allowing this topic to have its own heading gives English-speaking artists and designers the opportunity to understand how this set has been and can be used. A book by Alfred Ziffer, Wolfgang Von Wersin 1882-1976, refers to Wersin's use of the Orthogons as well (Klinkhardt & Biermann 1991). German heading of the diagram (pg 31): Geometrische Beziehungen der Orthogone or Geometric relations of the Orthogons. I first learned of their existence and use (from German artists), and would have researched under that name rather than the other suggestions, including Wersin. This information will also likely be of great interest to anyone seeking to understand in how artists, architects, calligraphers, etc. can actually use the golden rectangle (and the other orthogons) in a design. This topic has application to art and should be considered in that light.Valriejensen1 (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If these rectangles are used in art, surely someone would have written something about that in English by now, no? I think they're just too obscure, the imaginative creation of a handful of people who never got them noticed. Enough to mention in an article, but not enough notability for their own article. How about merging with root rectangle into something like dynamic rectangle? Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much has been written about the use of specific orthogons in art (Michael Schneider does a great job with root rectangles) and others as mentioned in the article. Artists I know who use them are less interested in publishing than creating--which is probably the case even in higher education. Art schools such as the Bauhaus and Royal College of Art likely have information available, but apparently not through the internet--and not in English. These are a specific set of harmonic rectangles and anyone interested in their use (most likely in the fields of art/design/architecture/calligraphy/typography) probably won't be looking under "root rectangle" or "harmonic rectangle." This set of 12 harmonic rectangles surely has a term. The titles of the rectangles don't appear to originate in English, but their use as outlined in the context of the article is verifiable. Your points are excellent, but keeping the article under this heading allows time for more information (and hopefully, verification) to emerge--or re-emerge as often happens in the world of the arts. An internet reference to a statement by the architect, Stanley Tigerman may add to the conversation: "I pledge allegiance to the orthogon".Valriejensen1 (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without citing more sources, your comments don't help. It doesn't matter whether the sources are on the internet. But if there are none in English it's hard to support keeping the current title for this topic. Dicklyon (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is having the references in English of so much importance that the information not be made available otherwise? English is a form of low German, the language of the most verifiable reference available at this time.Valriejensen1 (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a beautiful, well-cited article, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But none of the beautiful citations mention the English word "orthogon" in the sense of the article topic. The topic is pretty much Jay Hambidge's dynamic symmetry and root rectangles; a merge would allow beefing those up with a bit from the German source on "Orthogone". The rest of what's claimed is pretty much just imaginative. I have the cited book by Ghyka, which may support the statement "Besides being orthogonal and rectangular, their main characteristic is a dynamic symmetry, which means that their proportions are a consequence of geometric ratios as opposed to an exclusively static symmetry based on rational ratios," but doesn't support connecting "they" to "orthogons". I don't find an exact passage for that, but it appears to be based on the chapter on "dynamic rectangles" of Hambidge, along with Macody-Lund and Moessel. Nothing about orthogons or Wersin; no mention in Ghyka. Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could go along with a merger per Dicklyon. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mysticism without much support in the literature. Anything worth including here is covered better already in golden rectangle. And "orthogon" is just a pointless neologism; we already have a perfectly good word, "rectangle", meaning the same thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are a very specific set of harmonic rectangles that by themselves are abundantly verifiable. Their use in either designing or analyzing works of art is also verifiable. Giving them a different term, even "harmonic rectangles" would put the article in the realm of neologism.Valriejensen1 (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice essay on a neologism. The only non-original research material in the article is a definition. -Atmoz (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing awareness is a valid endeavor and appears to be a purpose of Wikipedia. This article would qualify as an essay on neologism if the term was in fact new and if it only applied to a very narrow, fast-moving field. Wikipedia contributors should be allowed to refer to resources beyond the internet. Otherwise, the world knowledge base is at risk of losing valuable information. In this particular instance, artists and other designers may find that the benefit of subduing this knowledge exceeds the general "need to know."Valriejensen1 (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing Wersin saw the value of publishing what artists and other designers simply talk about (in the guild tradition). I happen to agree with him and Sir Francis Bacon (and apparently JFK)--"knowledge is power."Valriejensen1 (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, but the content has to be verified and sourced.--20-dude (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC) The name of the article has to be changed back to orthogon.--20-dude (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would including images from the book make the difference? The book is available through inter-library loan, but be prepared to wade through Wersin's highly technical tome--auf Deutsch.Valriejensen1 (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content in the article has been verified, sourced and improved for the purpose of clarification.Valriejensen1 (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has not been established: there are no sources independent of the proposer of the term; it is not used in English. Dicklyon (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, since the rectangles referenced have abundant sources in English and the German source for the 12 as a whole is verifiable, could the article remain until someone can prove the term orthogon is specific to Wersin and should not be used in a broader context? The information in the article is particularly useful (and valuable) to artists/designers/architects and is being taught in English--but that's not as easily verified.Valriejensen1 (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much more sensible to merge the meager sourced content (dropping the rest) with root rectangle into a new dynamic rectangle article. Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Actually I was going to say that notability is not an issue since a) there has been a lot of historiacal use of these orthogons and b) the word orthogon can be found in some dictionaries (as the one from the XIX century I found in google books). I was also going to say that since orthogon=rectangle, the merge was going to be tricky... However, Dicklyon's idea just nailed the situation. The 12 Wersin orthogons are Dynamic rectangles (some are both dynamic and static), which is a concept far far more researchable and verifiable. In consequence a Dynamic rectangle article with a Wering section would be the way to go.--20-dude (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already created the dynamic rectangle article, please don't move there anything from the orthogons article that doesn't have a reference (<ref></ref>). Let's built that article the right way.--20-dude (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you captured the sourced info OK, so I change my recommendation back to delete. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also change my recommendation to delete and also recommend to the creator of the article to source whatever he or she wants to move to the dynamic rectangle article.

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.