Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibhorr formula

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. Killiondude (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bibhorr formula

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

Questionable formula. The links provided are to a book self-published in February 2017, social media websites and a site of Merian-Webster where one can propose new words. At most this seems to be a promotional article to make an obscure new mathematical concept well-known. But I am happy to be corrected if someone with detailed knowledge about mathematics can establish the notability of the seemingly brand-new formula. Travelbird (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is complete (and non-notable) nonsense. And is it just me, or do all these various references look like they were written by the same person using pseudonyms in order to make it look like there's wider interest in this than there really is? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DV. --JBL (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable pseudo-mathematics that somebody made up one day. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Almost looks like a hoax, actually. If it were real, I'd think it would upend all of mathematics as it replaces trigonometry. I don't recall from high school math class that doing so would be so easy. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as complete nonsense. Yes, if this were true it would revolutionise trigonometry, but as such it is obviously false as trig is so well grounded. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The formula doesn't even work for a 3x4 triangle. Gives the angle as 50-something radians. LOL Acebulf (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2018 (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.