Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preston Toroidal Scale
- 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. No chance of this surviving AfD. Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up one day. The Bushranger One ping only 10:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Preston Toroidal Scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes).
- Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
- Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. Semitransgenic talk. 16:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 26. Snotbot t • c » 17:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It would be easier to understand if the authors explained their notation and terms better, but I'm quite certain there's no meaningful mathematics here, just some half-baked numerology. The last sentence itself essentially proves that no one has seriously studied this or it wouldn't have been a conjecture for very long. Googling turns up a few but none that constitute reliable analysis in secondary sources. Kilopi (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Searching books makes the few web hits disappear, and the web hits are questionable at best, serving mostly to confirm that this is some sort of fringey nonsense. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the article was created less than 24 hours after the supposed "discovery" mentioned in the article is a fairly good indicator by itself that this is someone making stuff up off the top of xyr head, and coming to Wikipedia to write about it in contravention of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Some quick use of Google Web finds this where the "discoverer" indicates that that is pretty much what xe did. Uncle G (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2013 (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.