- 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 speedy delete (G3). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Elwick's number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Original research. Fails WP:MADEUP: "If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia". Contested prod. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly speedy as blatant hoax, but definitely delete as hoax. This is utter nonsense. --Pgallert (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, even if it's not a hoax (I don't understand the mathematics well enough), there's no good reason to have a MADEUP number. It fails the primary criterion at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), and I'm guessing that it fails the other criteria as well. Combine that with an obvious lack of sources, and it's definitely deletion time. Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOR. Zero GScholar and Gbooks hits. Salih (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as patent nonsense, so nominated. Although the text is grammatical, it makes no sense whatever. I could write an equally grammatical piece about determining what color a kilometer is. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:25, 10 July 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.