Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A trigonometric identity for a circulant matrix

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 WP:SNOW: delete and userify to User:Daviddaved/A trigonometric identity for a circulant matrix. CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A trigonometric identity for a circulant matrix

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

Completin an unfinished nomination. Reyk _YO! 10:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and now that I have had a chance to read it over... Delete because it's pure original research. Reyk _YO! 10:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, the creator is using Wikipedia to publish original research. Even if it were already published elsewhere, I don't think that for the most part a proof is an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles aren't supposed to endeavor to prove something! Even for famous proofs like the ones for the four-color map problem and Fermat's equation, though there should be articles about them, the proofs themselves, possibly hundreds of pages long, don't belong here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The title is that of a research paper, so I don't even know what to search for to make a good faith effort to look for sources. The author is apparently unaware of the basic principles of Wikipedia. From the presentation style it appears to be an original paper and therefore OR.--RDBury (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the proofs issue should be brought up here, there are many proofs on Wikipedia and some articles which consist primarily of proofs. This is controversial to some but they are allowed. Bringing the issue up here may generate a lot of discussion on proofs in general which should probably be in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs which already has a great deal of argument in both directions.--RDBury (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a note to that page: I think WP:NOFULLTEXT has some applicability to the question, in addition to WP:NOR, which applies here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this may be good stuff, for a different sort of web site. Lots of "original research" posted to Wikipedia is worthless crap at best, but this may be good. It appears to have been written by David Ingerman, whom I met, if somewhat briefly, at MIT. However, it clearly runs afoul of Wikipedia's policy against original research, so delete. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2010 (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.