Deletion of Rational trigonometry

Comment: Removing valid sources from the article and then claiming sources couldn't be found is '''extremely''' bad form by the nominator, who deserves a . The deleted sources included a properly cited journal article (Olga Kosheleva, ''Geombinatorics'', Vol. 1, No. 1, 2008, pp. 18–25), which I have restored to the article. Problems with the accompanying urls were no reason at all to delete the references (as has been noted). A quick Google books search also finds several mentions of Wildberger's ideas, e.g. in Shirali & Vasudeva (2010), ''Multivariable Analysis'', Springer, pp 246-247; Harrison (2009), ''Handbook of Practical Logic and Automated Reasoning'', Cambridge University Press, p. 414. Together with the ''New Scientist'' article, and the MAA book review, that puts it over the notability line in my view, and indicates an ongoing interest in Wildberger's (possibly nutty) ideas. His finitism|finitist approach is interesting particularly for computational mathematics and automated reasoning, however. -- Special:Contributions/101.119.15.209|101.119.15.209
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT)

Comment: Contrary to the nomination statement, there *are* reliably published third party sources: The New Scientist article, and the MAA review. However, the sources are all about the event of the book's publication, their existence does not distinguish this book from an enormous number of other mathematics books, and our article is not actually focused on the book but on its contents. I think the most relevant guideline is : this theory made a brief popular media splash when it appeared, but has not been demonstrated to have the enduring notability required to make it an encyclopedic topic rather than a news topic. Incidentally, the idea of simplifying certain calculations by using squared distances rather than Euclidean distances is a very useful one, but is far older than Wildberger's work (e.g. Cayley wrote about squared distances in 1860), so the usefulness of this idea cannot be used as a justification for keeping an article focused on Wildberger's contributions: it's not his contribution, even if he briefly popularized it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This is clearly a fringe theory (this is acknowledged in the body of the article). This is almost , as nobody has claimed that the theory has been useful for him or that it solves pre-existing problems. The content of the theory  consists only in replacing the distance by its square (which is not new as quoted above) and the angles by the square of their sinus (which prevents to consider oriented and obtuse angles). Thus this theory is very similar to tau (2pi) proponent (consisting in replacing, for similar biased reasons, pi by 2pi), but it is much less notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:original research)