Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorian's identity

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. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian's_identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Delete. Non-notable, unreferenced. Looks like one of many such identities from any trigonometry textbook. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like a hoax, like claiming that (x+x)/2x - 1 = 0 is significant. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable/non-notable, a search for this name finds no relevant results. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found nothing in Google scholar, Google books, or MathSciNet to indicate that this identity is known by this name. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I haven't even been here at Wikipedia for a year and this is probably the 50th hoax article I've witnessed on Articles for deletion. Shame. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. And please close this before it WP:SNOWs any more. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essentially this same double-angle formula for the cotangent function has long been listed in the list of trigonometric identities in the form

${\displaystyle \cot(2\theta )={\frac {\cot \theta -\tan \theta }{2}}.}$

This article looks like an attempt by someone who derived this identity from scratch to name it after himself. If in fact it had never been discovered before and if there were a reason to name it after the person who posted it here, then it would violate the ban on original research on Wikipedia. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of significant sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:16, 22 May 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.