Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General theorem of all temporary spaces

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. Courcelles 17:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General theorem of all temporary spaces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  It's about a book, so I don't think OR is the target. I mean, it could be a perfectly acceptable explanation of what the book says. Ironholds (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as OR. Searching Google, Worldcat, and other ISBN search tools reveals no evidence that the indicated book exists; presumably it is self-published. It certainly fails WP:GNG. -- 202.124.73.145 (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete borders on wp:nonsense. the original book seems to be self-published effort in russian, no less, with no translation available. it hasn't been discussed anywhere that i can find other than some quite non-reliable-looking websites in russian. it's OR and nonsense as science, and as an artifact capable of sustaining notability on its own, nevertheless completely fails to do so. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article about a book that is not notable about a fringe theory that is not notable by an author who is not notable. A Russian version of this article has been speedy deleted from the Russian Wikipedia for lacking "evidence of encyclopedic significance".  --Lambiam 07:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• note — for the future: page creator posted to talk page of this discussion instead of here. (noting for sake of latecomers to discussion). — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2011 (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.