Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burke's Postulate

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. MBisanz ^talk 05:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burke's Postulate

Contested prod. Article is about a mathematical theory that I am unable to verify exists. No reliable sources were provided, none were found. Last sentence is telling: ". . . still no proof of the phenomenon." I believe this was made up one day. TN‑X-Man 21:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article does make some sense, but only by playing with semantics. There's no real mathematical or physical truth to be found here. It relies on the conceptual difficulties with the mathematical concept of infinity. The sign-off appears to violate the GFDL, by the way. It's something made up one day. There is an element of hoaxery (that the Large Hadron Collider is going to test this theory, etc). - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like the author forgot to activate his reference list. I just did, for him, and the article looks to be in-line cited – and well referenced. Over my head yes, but I believed overlooked by nominator before bringing here. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't notice the references, having not looked at the page source, but now that I have seen them, it doesn't change my !vote. He's citing certain elements of his argument correctly, but the essential parts of 'Burke's postulate' are entirely original research or something made up one day, or just plain bollocks. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is a textbook example of synthesis: it is the author's original research that draws conclusions from sources that do not advance those conclusions themselves. No sources exist that discuss this nebulous "postulate" itself. Reyk _YO! 22:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I postulate that there is a finite probability that user:Danny B 10 is the said Daniel J. Burke, who is the last person who should be writing about this concept. dramatic (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I further hypothesize that the value of this probability is exactly 1. Reyk _YO! 22:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - <bait>You can't say that it's 1, though it's very high. It might be as high as 0.999.... - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)</bait>[reply]
Delete Obviously non-notable. -Atmoz (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I have studied math for many, many years, and I know there is no such proposition. Clearly something madeup judging from the lack of verifiability. MuZemike (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strangely enough, "Burke's Postulate" calls up several different words of wisdom by guys named "Burke" [1], but the most famous is from Edmund Burke, who was the one who said "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." Note to "Danny B" -- get published in a peer-reviewed physics journal, and you might not have to go through this type of peer review. Mandsford (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – non-notable; does not make sense from a mathematical point of view. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Lambiam 17:41, 4 December 2008 (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.