Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaimi-Marku inequality
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 JoshuaZ 02:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zaimi-Marku inequality[edit]
- Zaimi-Marku inequality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This is just a maths problem. There is no academic work on it. Salvatore Ingala 16:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like a textbook (heh) case of things made up in school one day. Zetawoof(ζ) 16:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obviously not suitable for Wikipedia - WP:V.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 16 hits on Yahoo and 11 hits on Google--all either Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors or message boards. Come back when you're published in a scholarly journal.--Blueboy96 16:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The external link is simply a forum entry wherein the authors of this article announce their proof. --Nonstopdrivel 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The objection seems to be that this is original research. Why not say so explicitly, if that's it? "Just a maths problem" describes many many thousands of Wikipedia articles that there is no reason to delete, so this discussion isn't making a lot of sense yet. Michael Hardy 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Consider it so stated, then. --Nonstopdrivel 01:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination in its entirety suggests OR. "There is no academic work on it" I would think means no scholarly publications on the topic. That's basically the death knell for a math topic. --C S (Talk) 06:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the nomination wasn't very clear, so I want try to explain my point of view. Problem solvers always create new math problems and solutions, but they are just exercises. In some cases, the problems themselves are so interesting/difficult/profound to gain attention from mathematicians, someone makes some research on them, and publishes something on the topic. Until that, they are just exercises. Sorry for my far-from-perfect English language... Salvatore Ingala 10:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination in its entirety suggests OR. "There is no academic work on it" I would think means no scholarly publications on the topic. That's basically the death knell for a math topic. --C S (Talk) 06:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Might be worth keeping if the article gave some example of this inequality being useful, or at least some intuition of what it's trying to achieve (it's not at all clear whether the left or the right hand side would typically be the one we're trying to bound). --Gro-Tsen 03:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is yet another example of some well-meaning students of the Art of Problem Solving getting carried away with some math they worked out and posting it to Wikipedia. --C S (Talk) 06:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication of notability. —SlamDiego←T 12:16, 18 June 2007 (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.