Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Wickstrom's Identity

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Wickstrom's Identity[edit]

This is a user's vanity page (note User name) on his own very low-level high-school mathematics, and as such it will never pass AFC. The previous rejections were narrow-focused enough that the user continues to edit the page, apparently to fix the stated AFC drawbacks, unaware that it is inherently non-notable original research self-promotional NOTHERE material. Choor monster (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was a straightforward decline, so I honestly didn't look into it in great detail, but Choor monster appears to be correct in their assessment of the situation. Primefac (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your initial assessment that dictionary entries are not encyclopedic inspired him to add it to Wiktionary, where it was quickly deleted. Choor monster (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's mathematically trivial and obvious. Kids as young as 10 learn that any number divided by itself equals one, and it's true even for irrational numbers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The identity in question is simply a pointless rewriting of the defining equation of the golden ratio using Euler's identity. Still trivial and obvious, but more at the mid-teens level. Choor monster (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reason for my posting this is because it expresses the unit 1 in purely irrational terms. No other formula has done that, and given its other properties I would contest the assertion that it is banal - however obvious its derivation may be. However, this is my first submission to Wikipedia, and clearly I had not sufficiently reviewed the standards for an entry; my apologies for that, and thank you for your time. Zwickstr (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are infinitely many identities expressing 1 in purely irrational terms. As mentioned by Roger above, even a bright 10-year old can understand this. Our standards for an identity is that Reliable Sources have found the identity worth discussing. These are the identities that have achieved their own articles: Category:Mathematical identities. Numerous other identities are on Wikipedia, part of some other article. In each case, they are there because Reliable Sources have found the identity worth discussing. Note the emphasis on the "identity". The fact that the bits that go into it are individually significant is of no relevance. Choor monster (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is non-notable original research. When the proof of a statement relies only on definitions and algebra that one would be expected to learn by middle school, it's a triviality, not an identity. ~ Rob^Talk 19:21, 30 August 2015 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.