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 procedural keep (non-admin closure). This concern should be addressed through a merging discussion on the relevant talk pages, or by creating articles for Tangent (function) and Cosine, not with an AfD. FourViolas (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sine[edit]

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

The other trigonometric functions are redirects, so this one should be a redirect too. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commment so that would be a redirect to Trigonometric_functions#Sine.2C_cosine_and_tangent presumably. Siuenti (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's lots here that's not in Trigonometric_functions#Sine.2C_cosine_and_tangent, and there's a lot more that can be said about sines than just the definition. Some is in other articles (e.g. List of trigonometric identities), but this is still a useful and encyclopedic topic. It's a bad argument to say "there's no article on cosines so we should delete the article on sines": this is a wiki, and articles aren't created according to a careful plan. Maybe we need an article on cosines. Plus, if you're going to propose a redirect (a) do it on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion not here, and (b) say what you think it should actually redirect to. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as invalid. AfD is not for redirection, which is does not require any special process. You could just do it and see if you get reverted, or less provocatively, you could use the Wikipedia:Proposed mergers procedure. Note that I have no strong opinion on whether sine should be a separate article. --Trovatore (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason not to have a more specific and detailed article on sine than could be incorporated in a more general article on trigonometric functions. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is definitely scope for a separate article, but I don't think the current arrangement of content is ideal. There is some good content at sine, but probably contains too much overlap with the existing article trigonometric functions. An article on the sine could include things like the tables that appear later on, series and product developments, continued fraction expansions, etc. Similar articles could be spun off for the other trigonometric functions as well. In fact, if anything it's strange that we don't have articles about each of these. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It does seem odd to have a separate article for sine but not cosine or tangent. Cotangent and cosecant seem less notable but where do you draw the line? The trigonometric functions article is probably too long and there should be less trying to include everything in one page and more putting the details into linked articles. Not sure that we need a separate article for all six functions though. Maybe rename 'sine' to 'sine and cosine', or leave the name and just include cosine in the sine article since they're really the same with a domain shift. You could do something similar with the remaining functions. Note, we do have a separate articles for versine and exsecant which cover the "forgotten" functions. I agree with some of the other comments that this should have been a proposed merge, not an AfD. --RDBury (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep per Trovatore's reasoning. This is a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion, and nobody can argue that the topic cannot support a separate article. Asking why cos and tan lack their own articles is silly: they could support stand-alone articles too. Not all the contents are duplicated at trigonometric functions, and the question of whether there's too much overlap in coverage belongs on article talk pages, not at AfD. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2015 (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.