Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inevitability theorem

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. - Mailer Diablo 23:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this one for deletion because: (1) It gets 4 unique Google hits, none to any university websites, suggesting non notability; (2) when one adds the word "plagiarism" to that Google search, the results come down to zero, suggesting a hoax; (3) it seems to be justifying the great mass of copyvios that get submitted here. (4) It was created by someone with the same username as the author named in the article, suggesting vanity and original research. Delete CanadianCaesar 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - neologism, quick search in reputable journals turns up no such theorem. --HappyCamper 01:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per HappyCamper. The theorem has to have a proof published in a reputable journal, otherwise it is original research.TheRingess 01:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Durova 03:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Josh Parris#: 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tobyk777 04:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It's not a theorem: it's a hypothesis (natural science) or a conjecture (mathematics). B.Wind 05:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CanadianCaesar. Seems just a lazy adaptation of infinite monkey theorem anyway, which would explain the misuse of the word "theorem". --Qirex 05:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax, alternatively original research. --DrTorstenHenning 11:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obvious rubbish. The phrase 'unintentional plagarism ' is a contradiction in terms 82.38.97.206 21:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)mikeL[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Krich (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable subject. Cedars 14:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a theorem, rather some non-notable fact. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it even qualifies as a "fact". CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:38, 23 December 2005 (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.