Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clicks principle

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. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clicks principle

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

Contested PROD; the reason given for the original prod says it all, "Attempt to give a new name to a basic principle of algebra." Appears to be an attempt by the creator to name a "principle" after himself. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source is a blog entry, and Google doesn't produce anything that may support this name for this bit of basic algebra. Favonian (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax (the name being the hoax, not the equation). --Pgallert (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The application is the principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.108.90 (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I see that it is a principle but the actual name is non-existent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.108.90 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. Wikipedia is not in the business of redefining semantics. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply attempting to put something, which is seemingly true and is not on wikipedia, on wikipedia. {98.251.108.90 (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete - self-aggrandizement - UtherSRG (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{98.251.108.90 (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep as an arguable truth. {98.251.108.90 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: from this user's editing pattern I'm pretty sure that he's a sockpuppet of the article's author. andy (talk)

15:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom. andy (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a sockpuppet and I agree with trashing the name but the principle is not even touched from where i've searched on wikipedia because it is truly a personal idea but the math,science and philosophy are unprovably false so far. I give in to the fight. {98.251.108.90 ([[User talk:98.251.108.90|talk]]) 16:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)} Okay so would not it be reasonable to keep this article until the name of the equation is found?{Kk8 (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

If the name of the equation is not found, the article is not kept. Simple as that. We can't have people guess what the name is of whatever they're looking for. Have you considered mentioning the equation (without a name) in Algebra? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I am certainly not one of those who need to be prodded. In fact, if anything, I am the prod."- Winston Churchill {98.251.108.90 (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete, hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2010 (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.