Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shortcut Slant Asymtote

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut Slant Asymtote

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, sorry! —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a school text. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This article is pure WP:original research and signed as such. D.Lazard (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A11. Obviously made-up by the article's creator, and the article says as much. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, by "made up" I understand "make-believe" or something invented by the writer or his pals, like a new game or fictional character or buzz word. That's distinct from original research that represents real knowledge but which, while it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, isn't grounds for speedy deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your understanding of "made up" is too narrow. See WP:MADEUP. This is a valid speedy deletion candidate. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion isn't mentioned in that article, other than a See Also link. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do see that at Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A11._Obviously_made_up it says "An article which plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant." The "discovered" part bothers me a bit. I'd hate to think that if Einstein posted the original Special Theory of Relativity article, it wouldn't be seen as entitled to a full deletion discussion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is what it is, and means what it says. Your narrow reading of it is not supported either by the text of the policy or the further content guideline WP:MADEUP which elaborates on this point. Let's not engage in hypothetical slippery slope arguments by invoking Einstein. This article should clearly be deleted quickly, either as a speedy or a snow. (Also I wonder why you nominated this article for deletion if you now seem to be arguing against its deletion.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that you don't understand the difference between being in favor of an article's deletion and having the impression that it may not qualify for one or another of the deletion options. You could ask the same question of every person who has ever nominated an article for deletion without attempting Speedy first. Anyway, why haven't you just gone and requested speedy deletion? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This isn't an encyclopedia article in any way. epzik8 16:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A11. Also, not even slightly encyclopedic. PianoDan (talk) 15:30, 1 November 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.