Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Composite Number Factoring Theorem

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Composite Number Factoring Theorem

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

Appears to be original research, with little or no valuable content. (reposting original nom by user:DGG) — Fly by Night (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence was provided that it is notable. Nor is there any reason to believe that it is a more efficient way to calculate factors than conventional methods or even of comparable efficiency. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious original research. The WP:PROD tag should not have been removed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I messed up here. I didn't realise it was a WP:PROD, I thought it was a partly filed WP:AfD I guess I'm off the hook because user Symbolsequence had challeneged the deletion on the user page, and all PRODs should be uncontested. But I am sorry for messing up. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure WP:OR. Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I did not quite understand why the prod tag was removed. The edit summary[1] was pretty confusing. Nsk92 (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I mis-read the template. I couldn't find an AfD page and thought it was a half-done AfD. Sorry! — Fly by Night (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly original research. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once wp:or was pointed out to the article's creator on the talk page he agreed that the article should be deleted. Almost g7-able. 174.109.199.154 (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Ozob (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is a clear policy, I just follow.Symbolsequence —Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 1 December 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.