Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coshc function

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 Hyperbolic function Clear consensus. Feel free to add a "brief mention of such second-tier functions" to the Hyperbolic function page. Adumbrativus mentioned that this redirect target may not be best for Tanc function, this is a small fix for someone better at math. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coshc function

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This concept $\operatorname {coshc} (x)=\cosh(x)/x$ is not notable. To begin, I checked the four sources cited in the article. The first, den Outer et al. [1], at one point contains ${\frac {\cosh \kappa r}{\kappa r}}$ as part of a larger equation, and that's all. The second (Körpinar [2]), third (Sönmez [3]), and fourth (ten Thije Boonkkamp et al. [4]) contain neither "coshc" nor even $\cosh x/x$ for anything in place of x. The article also formerly cited http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CoshcFunction.html which is currently a dead link and I can't confirm it ever existed. I found no other potential sources from a search. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hyperbolic function, where a brief mention of such second-tier functions can be added. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest we add Sinhc function, Tanhc function and Tanc function to this AfD. All suffer from the same lack of independent notability, and all can be included as a brief definition under the Hyperbolic function page. Pinging @David Eppstein: for an expert opinion. Owen× ☎ 14:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added these other three pages as suggested; hopefully I didn't screw up any of the technicalities on the backend. XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! No problem - I'm pinging David Eppstein about this - he was the only one who hasn't seen the update yet. Owen× ☎ 20:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator after sinhc, tanhc, and tanc were added: I am happy to support redirect for Sinhc function, Tanhc function, Tanc function, but I think targeting Sinc function is more natural. I guess it would be a brief mention in the history/etymology context, as names sometimes used by analogy. Certainly Hyperbolic function isn't a proper target for Tanc function. I originally proposed to delete Coshc function rather than redirect because that name is at best very obscure or at worst completely made up (more so than the others), but I don't object to a redirect to sinc if the other ones get redirected there too. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. We have chosen to group our trigonometric and hyperbolic functions into bundles; for instance, we do not even have a separate article for cosine. Given that, we should not make an exception for this one function. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: while I can guess your answer, for the sake of pro-forma, can you confirm your !vote also applies to the three other functions added to the AfD since your comment? Thanks! Owen× ☎ 20:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all These border on the territory of things made up one day. The "literature" on the topic is paltry and admits as much:The hyperbolic function $\sinh(x)/x$ receives scant attention in the literature. [...] If you type “sinhc function” into Wikipedia, you get the discouraging message “Did you mean: sinc function?” [5]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's hilarious! I wonder if any of the sources referenced on the Circular definition page reference the Wikipedia article in turn. Owen× ☎ 18:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the MathWorld business, I've been keeping a list of examples where that site has been a shoddy source, particularly for names. I don't think they have very high standards; sometimes it seems that if one person said it one time, MathWorld will accept it as a term. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all. Redirects are cheap, but agree that there's little sign of separate notability for these. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2024 (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.