Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elegant Exponents

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. BJ^Talk 09:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elegant Exponents

The article does not seem to meet notability guidelines. It also appears to be original research and a simple howto. I put on a prod but it was removed without explanation and I was asked to leave the article or do an AfD. Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as how-to. Useful content can be placed in Exponentiation but the name isn't viable as a redirect. HeureusementIci (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without redirect. I deprod'ed it without explanation, but that's specifically allowed as part of the prod process; sometimes its good to start a discussion. The tone may be how-to, but we could put some of those tables in a subsection of Exponentiation. There's a number of books out there on mental arithmetic that may serve as references. I'm not thrilled with the article title though and dont support a redirect; would also be a good idea to check where this came from. Article is very recently created, and nom has left a message on their userpage. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:prod it says "Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion either in the edit summary, or on the article's talk page." Dmcq (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template says "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason as far as wiki is concerned unless it is written down. WP:prod puts that into step by step how to do it terms. Just saying you don't like prods would be a reason. Dmcq (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This sort of thing can go on Wikibooks, maybe. Random tips for fast mental calculation don't really belong in an encyclopedia. (On the other hand, if there's a mental calculation article, that's a worthy encyclopedic topic, and the page creator might want to re-contribute one or two examples from this page at that ___location — but without a merge requiring a redirect.) --Trovatore (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there might be something worth including in mental calculation but it would need sources to show that these techniques have a wide use. --Salix (talk): 20:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article name appears to be the author's invention, as Googling "elegant exponents" does not seem to turn up any hits for this subject. The content (but not the prose) seems to be appropriate for mental calculation. Ozob (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge without redirect. squidfryerchef is correct on this matter. Fatmanandlittleboy (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)fatmanandlittleboy[reply]
- Comment you can't do that. Well, technically, you can, but it's a huge pain, because you have to find some way to satisfy the attribution requirements of the GFDL (normally the history of the redirect left behind serves this function). It's not worth it for any content here. However, if the main contributor wishes to re-contribute the content somewhere else, that's acceptable in principle. (Whether the content itself is appropriate in the new ___location is not a question for us here.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not merge unless there are references proving notability. I doubt that powers of e are a very common or useful topic in mental calculation. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced howto. Classic example of WP:NOT. Ray^Talk 01:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author: concur with delete, however, the same arguements can be made for the "multiplication tables." Suggest changing name to "Counting Number Exponent Table" or similar, and filing it under exponents or as a property of the natural log. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GESICC (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Re: the author's suggestion on re-naming, I can't find any online hits for "Counting Number Exponent Table", either. ("Multiplication table", by contrast, has around 1.4 million Google hits, which I guess makes it notable). Which journal or other reliable source was this published in?Anaxial (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 27 March 2009 (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.