Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quasi-symmetric equation

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. --Coredesat 05:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi-symmetric equation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I really can't find any information about this on google, save one page: [1]. As such, this page faces serious WP:V, possible WP:OR issues (author may have coined the term himself). The Evil Spartan 18:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No context. Only cite is a Geocities page, not exactly reliable. Bearian 19:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it may well be true, but it's unsourced original research and appears to be a vanity article. A little Googling finds Ana Flores to be a math teacher in Uruguay, who funnily enough uses the Yahoo ID Septembrinol. Gordonofcartoon 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find any sources and none are listed, hence it's unverifiable (at least to me). On a first glance, the list of publications mentioned by The Evil Spartan has noting to do with it. By the way, the text of the article has been part of quartic equation for at least half a year. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The author closed his account after writing this article on July 29; "Ana Flores" appears to be mentioned only on the website used as a source; and when you get right down to it, this doesn't really tell us anything. It's good for those rare instances where you have a variable called "m" which happens to be is the ratio between two other parts of the equation (m = a3 / a1). I think it's meant to sound impressive, but says nothing. Mandsford 02:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, the author is still editing [2]. Paul August ☎ 19:07, 31 July 2007 (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.