- 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. DS 21:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
trivial observation; dubious name. If it could be demonstrated that this is a genuinely used name, I suppose the article could stay, though I'd probably suggest a merge to elementary algebra in that case. --Trovatore 22:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This "theorem" is something one would expect any high-school student to derive in a moment, and if they're at all mathematically inclined, one would expect them to have figured it out without ever having heard it mentioned. Some things that are simple and obvious deserve articles (e.g., the "law of trichotomy", because one can consider in which structures it holds and in which it does not, etc.). But this is not of that sort. Would the author of this article please tell us who "Soni" is? Michael Hardy 23:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a rather simple observation, that contrary to the article author's claims, is in fact used widely outside of the Art of Problem Solving community. In fact, it is a most basic theorem of arithmetic progressions. The fact that it was used in a Duke Math Meet is not notable. Nor is the fact that I derived this theorem years ago and used it in a class. Perhaps most importantly, I have studied number theory (formally and informally), and I have never run across this fact being referred to as "Soni's theorem". Perhaps Soni was some ancient mathematician who stated this theorem somehow without the benefit of say, mathematical symbols, or in any case, long enough ago that this was some kind of breakthrough. But I doubt it. --C S (Talk) 23:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If anything, the formula appears to be a definition of the nth term of an arithmetic sequence. In fact, the very first equation of the current version of arithmetic sequence is barely distinguishable from the formula given here. Dmharvey 23:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless the author can provide serious references. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per those guys. Rubbish. Kotepho 01:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Who is Soni, anyway? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a legit math formula, however, I suggest that maybe it be merged with something else. Mysmartmouth 23:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. I suggest, like Trovatore, that this article be merged with another topic, preferably elementary algebra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysmartmouth (talk • contribs)
- Mysmartmouth, it seems like you changed your mind from "keep" to "merge". Can you clarify? --C S (Talk) 03:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What exactly is mergable from the article anyway? The formula which is already in arithmetic progression? What other content is there, that is valid and of utility? BTW, I suggest to Mysmartmouth that trying to insert mention of "Soni's theorem" into arithmetic progression is not wise and will not save the article. --C S (Talk) 04:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable no google hits for the name and is trivially derivable. --Richard Clegg 07:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It's an observation, not a theorem. The substance of the result is duplicated in the intro of arithmetic progression. Revolver 19:03, 15 April 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.