Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen's number

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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronen's number

This article is mostly a discussion of Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis, but it defines "Ronen's Number" as 10¹²⁰. It was PROD'ed (by me) and deleted, with the concern being a lack of references. There are now six references in the article, but they do not appear to establish "Ronen's number" as a concept used in the sciences. Reference (1) is an elementary quantum mechanics texbook, apparently cited as a source for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. References (2-5) are papers by Dirac discussing the Large Numbers Hypothesis; none of them are indicated in the article to mention "Ronen's number" in particular, and I have double-checked this with paper copies of references (4) and (5). That leaves source (6), which I cannot access and may or may not define "Ronen's number," but it is in any case one paper, whose author list includes a Y. Ronen. I have not been able to find any discussion of this number elsewhere: no google hits except Wikipedia, no google scholar hits. Thus this concept, whether mentioned in the article or not, doesn't appear to have been noted or adopted as terminology by anyone. As such, it appears to be original research. I have requested clarification from User:Roneny, the creator of the article, and I'll make sure that (s)he knows about this discussion. SCZenz (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Ronen's correlations and their AfD discussion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. There is also a potential WP:COI issue, given the close similarity of the author's username (Roneny) and the article subject. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May get picked up by the scientific establishment but so far it is pure OR. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original neologism and lack of notability. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR & WP:N. Possibly used as a textbook example in reference #6. It doesn't appear that he's published it in a journal (from a quick glance through his publication record). THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reference #6 is a book: Statistical Treatment of Analytic Data by Zeev B. Alfassi, Zvi Boger, and Yigal Ronen. While incompletely available on the web, its index is; the only mention of Dirac is a conventional mention of electron-positron production. That it has been miscited strongly suggests that our editor is not Yigal Ronen, and this is a hoax. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Text was reposted at the largest number having a physical meaning. I converted it to a redirect. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:51, 18 August 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.