FrPlstn
Proposed deletion of Triangle bisector theorem
edit
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Triangle bisector theorem, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as "originial research"
editSeveral problems arise with triangle bisector theorem:
- Wikipedia has a policy forbidding original research.
- Usually the word "bisect" means to divide into two EQUAL parts. In this result the parts are not equal.
- The proposition appears to be a trivial corollary of Heron's formula. By Heron's formula, the area of a triangle whose sides have lengths c, p, and x is
- So the theorem appears to say only that the ratio of areas of the two triangles is the same as the ratio of x to y. Since x and y are the bases of two triangles that both have the same height, this is hardly surprising.
- It seems silly to make an issue of the square roots being imaginary, since one could just as easily have stated the identity using −c + p + x instead of c − p − x, and then the number under the radical is non-negative.
Consequently the article has been deleted as violating the policy against original research. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)