Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variable-shape geometry

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. --Core desat 03:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variable-shape geometry

Appears to be not supported by reputable sources. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As well developed as this article is, the only source appears to be the pamphlet listed in the article, written by the "rather unknown mathematician" who created the theory("Val Bess" +geometry gets 0 hits). There are no relevant Google, Google books, or Google Scholar hits for "Variable Shape Geometry." Therefore the article fails WP:V. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete badly-sourced crankery. —David Eppstein 03:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and don't forget to remove the redirects that point to it. -- Dominus 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one references is a self-published pamphlet.DGG 04:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. WP needs to respond robustly and quickly when poorly-sourced probable crankery like this is added. Geometry guy 05:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete False pseudomath by "rather unknown mathematician," i.e. unestablished. ---Alksub 07:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Self-published pamphlet is not a reliable source. Gandalf61 10:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. DavidCBryant 13:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No GScholar hits, no arxiv hits [1], couldn't even find a page referencing the "unknown mathematician". Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless adequate sources are provided and importance established. -- Fropuff 17:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, some of you should not be posting here. I can agree with you if you say this article is not worthy for wikipedia because it can not be verified, but to imply that it is self-published or 'crankery' is uncalled for. I received the pamphlet, was confident that the geometry was 'established', but didn't see an article on Wikipedia so I wrote one. No, I didn't check Google before because I don't like referring to google as my primary source of info. Otherwise, feel free to delete, but next time don't make quick assumptions. Burnedthru 20:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there was more substance to the VSG article, making it clear it was really something that could be called geometry, that would go a long way to convincing people it's worthy of being called geometry. But the article is extremely sketchy, and contains blanket hyperbolic statements such as everything is everything which make it not worthwhile reading, let alone content for an encyclopedia. We're not here for spectacle, an encyclopedia is for reference of hard facts. spectacle is promotion and belongs in another venue. If you feel like this has been a great injustice, on your user page you could attempt to write a more compelling sketch and propose it for adoption. But without more facts on the ground like research papers, I doubt it'll go anywhere. Rybu 18:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems like pretty much nonsense. It appears that it's simply Euclidean geometry with an a method to identify the end-points of lines. Not only does this not clearly even form a geometry - a proof would have to be produced showing that it's consistent. I suspect this is someone's pet project - and is thus non-notable. --Haemo 21:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if everything really is everything, this is the geometry of the plane where the isometry group is the group of homeomorphisms of

\mathbb {R} ^{2}

. If Bess has non-trivial theorems about the group of homeomorphisms of

\mathbb {R} ^{2}

I'm sure he'd get an audience in the mathematics world.Rybu 18:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. If only I knew what you were talking about... Burnedthru 22:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sd: and salt Its a crank page RogueNinja_talk 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May not be a crank, but definately self-published by "Bess". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:06, 19 April 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.