Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Isn't There a Nobel Prize in Mathematics

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Nobel Prize. – Rich Farmbrough 17:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Badly-named OR. DS 05:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Nobel Prize as trivia? >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Personal essay, original research. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThis is not original research; the original post provided a good bit of (copyright-violating) source material, and it has been suggested the whole thing was lifted from the sci.math FAQ. While I can see the temptation to delete it, I think it can be turned into a worthwhile, if quirky, article. No vote from me yet. The Land 09:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • . Merge. The Land 11:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: I am inclined to agree with User:RobyWayne. In case, the consensus is for this, than the contents may be suitably condensed. --Bhadani 09:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Dekete there isn't one in biology either, so what? Dunc|☺ 13:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Anything as long as it is not delete. Tintin 15:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I go for a merge. Who is going to type the whole thing in the encyclopaedia anyway ? Tintin 01:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If there's any substance to this, it will eventually find its way into the larger discussion at Nobel Prize. Dottore So 16:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Nobel Prize, though it needs some cleanup. Jonathunder 16:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup and then merge, as suggested by Jonathunder. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 21:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research/personal essay. --Carnildo 23:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly an original research. Google comes up with a lot of links starting with this Tintin 23:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• MergeJendeyoung 01:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep assuming it is true. But move to get rid of the caps from "isn't there". -- RHaworth 02:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoary old urban legend [1]. -- Grev -- Talk 03:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a mention of the urban legend into the Nobel Prize article. But please move this to a more reasonable name before merging and redirecting (as GFDL requires) so we're not stuck with a useless redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Private Butcher 02:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Nobel Prize - or move to a sensible title. But do not delete. \Mike(z) 14:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. the wub "?!" 15:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely useless, full of unfounded rumour. Cynicism addict 02:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Nobel Prize--Bkwillwm 16:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Contains nothing factual. (preceding unsigned comment by 80.58.8.107 (talk · contribs) )
• Move/Merge This is a terrible title for this article. Add a section to the nobel prize page with this info. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent^†_∈]] 09:13, 8 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.