Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Numbers - Binary
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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prime Numbers - Binary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A rather confused bit of original research on a non-redirectworthy title. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think its OR, however i do think its inside info, and only a mathematician would find this useful, if at all. Operating (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Only a mathematician would find this useful" is not a reason for deletion. Probably lots of Wikipedia would be useful only to a mathematician. So what? And "inside info" is of course nonsense in this case; that implies it's somehow esoteric. Michael Hardy (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "even a mathematician would find this useless"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Only a mathematician would find this useful" is not a reason for deletion. Probably lots of Wikipedia would be useful only to a mathematician. So what? And "inside info" is of course nonsense in this case; that implies it's somehow esoteric. Michael Hardy (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree that it's OR, and doesn't add much to the existing articles on prime numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR. In passing, I don't think "only a mathematician would find this useful" on its own is a reson for deletion! Richard Pinch (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — It's not really anything that has been already said in Prime Number. MuZemike (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR and non-standard terminology (eg. field). --Tango (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I didn't check to see how long that "under construction" tag had been on there. I also don't think that this article uses the term field (noted above) like the rest of the discipline does. Protonk (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - sorry; OR --catslash (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article does not establish notability, and I don't think it can. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Is there any particular purpose of the concept discussed in the article? (giving the purpose violates WP:OR) Topology Expert (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2008 (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.