- 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a hoax, at the least its original research and unsourced - one source is so incomplete it cannot be checked, the other is a Wikipedia article that doesn't mention the "aha variable". This is completely unverifiable The notion that this is somehow connected to the modern phrase "aha" is ludicrous on its face and after investigation [1]. Gwernol 22:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - looks like a good example of BALLS. Also, the author has a history of vandalism. That proves nothing of course, but there it is. -IceCreamAntisocial 22:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are some sites out there that claim that "aha" was actually a variable as described in the article[2] [3] (but [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1692648/posts these folks] aren't convinced...). This article is terribly written, though, and it may not be worth salvaging. Considering that the idea of "aha calculus" seems to be disputable, it might be best to start over and find some real sourcing, maybe an academic paper or book?[4] -- Scientizzle 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It turns out there is already a Wikipedia article that covers aha calculus at Egyptian fraction. It appears that Aha Variable is not so much a hoax as a fairly significant mis-interpretation of aha calculus. It may make most sense to redirect Aha Variable to Egyptian fraction. There are some questions remaining about the reliability of Egyptian fraction, but that's a separate issue. Gwernol 01:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination because of the page's current content. It's not written well, gives no other source but "look in the Rhind Papyrus" to verify itself, and related general term gets less than 50 Ghits. This may indeed exist, but it probably isn't notable, and if properly sourced and rewritten, could be redirected and/or merged into a short statement into Rhind Papyrus. Fabricationary 23:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. But might be a well-meaning beginning to a real article in the future. Problem 24 of the papyrus mentioned is given here: http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/HistTopics/Egyptian_papyri.html as x + x/4 = 15 with no mention of the name of the variable being "aha." However, this article http://www.people.ex.ac.uk/PErnest/pome12/article13.htm about "aha problems" indicates that there is some reality to this phrase. Not a hoax. Might even be notable. But it's not an encyclopedia article right now. Flying Jazz 00:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -R. S. Shaw 05:01, 2 September 2006 (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.