Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lhermite's models
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 speedy delete per consensus -- The Anome (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Lhermite's models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable concept, either original research or made up as a joke. This term does not appear in the scientific literature or indeed anywhere else. Deltahedron (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can find no trace of this topic anywhere, so the nominator's assessment seems right to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The equations are patent nonsense with no explanation of the notation, semantics, or what the equations represent. Ad hoc juxtaposition of concepts like prime numbers, arrows and red and blue balls with no explanation. I could find no such thing as a Lhermite model or L'hermite model either on Google or Google scholar. --Mark viking (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as apparent nonsense. RayTalk 03:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm inclined to think that this is just cryptically written OR which is likely to be fringe if not totally trash. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete At best OR; at worst cryptic nonsense. Author has not clarified the contents or provided reliable sources, despite requests. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The formulae appear to be based on a primality criterion derived from Wilson's theorem. They also appear at ht:Lainé Jean Lhermite Junior rather clearly indicating a case of OR. Deltahedron (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Request of the ending of the discussion
- Thanks for helping this article to get better.
- Could you give a new hand? Could you edit the formulas that concern Mersenne's Prime Numbers located at : [1] ?
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by L2j2 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 April 2013
- It seems from this that the article is indeed the author's original research: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." Deltahedron (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Couldn't find anything -- does not meet WP:GNG. Mkdwtalk 09:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not meeting WP:GNG. While I'm not a practicing mathematician, this certainly looks to me like WP:OR. -- The Anome (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2013 (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.