Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bozunov formulas

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not make sense to me, and I think with my background I should be able to understand it. I could not find a reference to Bozunov via the usual search tools. So I think the article is not verifiable. Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unverifiable nonsense, no google hits. Feezo (Talk) 13:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jitse, whom I trust to understand such stuff. Sandstein 15:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless verified. Paul August ☎ 04:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Peter Grey 04:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense. It would take a quite enormous amount of implicitly magical notation to get the formulas to make any sense formally. Also, a linear variety is someting to do with finite fields, which makes it extremely unlikely that any "coriolis formulae" related to them would involve trigonometric functions. Henning Makholm 04:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not proven --Masssiveego 08:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete linas 21:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Henning Makholm. Total gibberish. See also this edit, the only other by the creator of the article, which sounds like he/she/it is trying to say something, but doesn't make any sense. Lambiam^Talk 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Henning Makholm. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I should be able to understand it, also. Perhaps it would make sense with strategic rebalancing of parentheses — but I doubt it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:20, 21 March 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.