Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frivolous theorem of arithmetic

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. Sango123 18:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Frivolous Theorem of Arithmetic. That VfD attracted many IP votes and, for some reason, it was never properly closed. I'm nominating the article again so that the discussion can be brought to completion.

I don't think this "theorem" is in fact being used in mathematics. As the nominator said on the VfD page, it seems to be a "pretty feeble math joke". The article lists four references. The first reference is a one-liner in another online encyclopaedia (and we all know how reliable online encyclopaedia are, don't we?). The second reference is in fact copied from the first reference; I didn't check the book. The third and fourth reference do not mention "frivolous theorem of arithmetic". I don't think that's enough, so delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's a "theorem", not theorem. MaxSem 07:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Passably amusing joke. -- GWO
• Delete fel64 12:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Deli nk 12:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In-joke for mathemaholics - Peripitus (Talk) 12:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and add a mention into Almost all as an amusing example. flowersofnight (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The on-line encyclopedia mentioned in the nomination is Mathworld, which is sponsored by Wolfram Research (publisher of the well-regarded software Mathematica). While Mathworld accepts articles from readers, the site claims to review submitted articles before publishing them. Also, the [citesteer] site indicates that Mathworld articles have been cited in peer-reviewed publications. (On the other hand, I am not enough of a mathematician to say if this theorem is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia). Gerry Ashton 16:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was refering to MathWorld. However, their review is pretty minimal as errors slip through occasionally. As mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive11#MathWorld, MathWorld's articles are therefore viewed with healthy scepticism. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Almost all Delete what's left, not BJAODN worthy. ~ trialsanderrors 17:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Reyk _YO! 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN - (frivolously) copy it to WP:BJAODN BigDT 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. (It's also wrong, in that it does apply to the reals, if you append "in magnitude". μ(R) = ∞; μ([−k,k]) = 2k, so almost all reals are not in the interval from −k to k). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — This is an offense to Professor Frivolous. — RJH (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've added this as an example of usage in almost all. It doesn't merit its own article. Gandalf61 09:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Write Law of small numbers, as a separate article, mention there, and delete. Septentrionalis 21:56, 9 June 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.