Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Balk

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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Balk[edit]

Disputed prod, rationale was: "Unverifiable, appears to be a hoax. No evidence that any of the sources cited exist". This article was created with nonexistent sources; the bogus sources have been removed and replaced by actual published sources, but it's debatable whether the new sources substantiate the article's contents. The reference Music And Emotion is available for searching via Amazon's "search inside" feature (link) and the book contains no reference to a Gregory Balk. Web searches have revealed no evidence that this individual exists. Suggest deletion as a hoax. Muchness (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mm40 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mm40 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. It is a give-away that the article was created with false references, and only when challenged were these replaced with books that exist but cannot easily be checked. Also there is no reference to him in Google Scholar or Google Books. JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a lovely piece of fiction. Perhaps the person who created it can find a better way to use his talent. LargoLarry (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know that I agree it fits G3 as a hoax, but as it stands it is completely unverified. Good bit of searching with the Amazon search inside! ~ Amory (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the G3 tag, I agree with you that it doesn't meet the requirement as "deception is so obvious as to constitute pure vandalism". --Muchness (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. But he had a nice taste in guitars, and I'm a big fan of agricultural metal myself. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I suspected it with the false references and lack of Google results, now it appears to be confirmed by the lack of mention in the Amazon link provided. snigbrook (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost certainly a hoax. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 4th-Dimensional Calculus is a subject new to me. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

More on this. The extension of the calculus from three to four dimensional Euclidian spaces is trivial. The extension to four-dimensional spaces of indefinite metric (needed for the theory of relativity) was accomplished a little under 100 years ago by Hermann Minkowski, Marcel Grossman and Albert Einstein. Spaces of infinite dimensions (Hilbert spaces) came into common use in the nineteen thirties. The hoax is betrayed by its weak maths and, of course, by its total lack of sources. Nice try but Obvious Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Just to inform, there does exist a mathematican by the name of gregory balk in the archives at Trinity college. I have no idea how much of the article is a hoax, the authors may have made the whole thing up, based it on some fact or of course it could have been a coincidence. But i'd advise some more research is needed before deletion as some parts may be based on truth. Although it does look quite unlikely, and as Xxanthippe said the weak maths seems a bit strange if they based it truthfully. James.o.flath (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 June 2009 (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.