Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 3

[edit]

I am a mathematician, with some knowledge about spectra of differential operators, which this article is about. As many people guessed, this article just gives a badly explained description of the spectrum of the Laplace operator with Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions. There is not much value in this article, and there will not be more if it is properly wikified and integrated with other articles. To make this article at least somewhat meaningful, one would need to talk about the physical interpretation of the laplacian, (e.g., the fact that the eigenvalues are the frequences of a drum in the shape of the set \Omega), the uses of the defintion in here, and other things. Also, one would need to put at least some justification or references for the many claims stated in here.

In short, this article the way it is is a worthless definition full of math lingo, and it would take lots of work to put it in good shape, which I doubt is worth it. Any other ideas? Oleg Alexandrov 00:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete please. hydnjo talk 01:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unhelpful fragment. Wyss 03:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete please. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 15:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It'd have my keep vote merely as an argument for keeping the ugly math template, but seeing as that's already deleted, delete. --fvw* 17:15, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Why is this page still standing? Oleg Alexandrov 03:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A schoolteacher. No evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Gzornenplatz 23:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Rje 01:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A lot of work went into this. Um, Polite Delete. hfool/Wazzup? 01:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to user namespace.-gadfium 02:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn genealogy. Wyss 02:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Maya (software)? 137.222.10.67 00:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Anyone looking for Maya won't look under maya Maya, I think. Delete, no redirect. hfool/Wazzup? 01:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a mistaken heading. Wyss 02:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect. Though it was nominated by an anon, I would've nominated it too. Mrwojo 04:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • What, it's not a link to my personal tribute to Maia Morgenstern? Delete of course. But I couldn't help being amused by its resemblance to the title of something I'd written... -- Jmabel | Talk 06:26, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cleduc 07:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vanity/Hoax --cwols 01:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks like speedyable nonsense to me. David Johnson [T|C] 02:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete-gadfium 02:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is also speediable as silly vandalism. Wyss 02:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. er, yes, this is self-promotion. Cleduc 07:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic vanity. Mgm|(talk) 11:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Rje 12:45, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a speedy. --fvw* 17:16, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Not notable, no meaningful content, possible vanity page -- a dead-end orphan with no potential to become encyclopedic. ➥the Epopt 01:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete.-gadfium 02:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as spam (ad platform for a link). Wyss 02:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Cleduc 07:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, not-notable, selfpromotion. --Wikimol 10:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)(if you agree this stuff should be speedy deleteted, you can vote for extension of speedy deletion criteria, proposals III and XI)
  • Delete; vanity, nn. Newfoundglory 16:13, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, self-promotion.-gadfium 02:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not sufficiently notable.-gadfium 02:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, this seems to be ad with some sort of stealthy agenda- no band member names, no evidence of existence at all. Wyss 02:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. smells like teen promo. Cleduc 07:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • These cats may be Buddhist, but their notability isn't established. Delete Hoary 08:35, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Delete not even well written. --AmeenDausha 20:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A page about an agnostic Marxist who is going to turn 16 this month. Let's wait until he heads this massive revolution he's planning before we include him, shall we? Ливай | 02:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I tried to make this a speedy candidate but it didn't fit. Totally fails to establish notability and I strongly suspect vanity by a close relative. Anon IP responsible resolves to Michigan. Dbiv 03:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete no importance or relavance. Cacophony 04:35, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rje 12:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, good call. --fvw* 17:18, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Delete, but well-written genealogy like this shouldn't be speedied... something might be missed. Wyss 04:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete obviously not a notable. Sandover 06:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zero google hits for this strangely vague POV and original research type future prediction. Dbiv 03:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If this isn't original research, it certainly looks like it. Maybe we need Wikidamus, where budding prophets can upload their predictions and the rest of us can watch and laugh at them when they don't come true. --Kelly Martin 08:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. speculative fiction. Cleduc 09:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Del Original research. Or is there a wiki to transwiki this?--Wikimol 10:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. In its defense, the spelling "October conflict" gets about 300 hits, though not all deal with this matter. At any rate, the Google test is hokey anyway. Possibly rename the article, or merge into an article such as Projected Sociological Evolution of the United States or Scenarios for the Overthrow of the Corporate Elite. EventHorizon talk 18:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • In fact, I can't find any evidence that there's anything notable or special about the specific name "Oktober conflict", although I've heard/seen it used a couple of times. Definitely keep this information, but in a different article. EventHorizon talk 18:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I question whether theoretical, hypothetical musings on possible 'sociological evolutions' belong in a general encyclopedia under any circumstance. They should only be included if they describe a "notable" theory, which requires that the theory be forwarded by a prominent person or captivate a substantial portion of the public. Does this theory meet that test? --Kelly Martin 22:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Megan1967 02:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless this can be definitively sourced as an active discussion outside of Wikipedia, delete as original research. Speculation about future events should pass a high hurdle before being included as an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 01:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research, though very intersting. hfool/Roast me 23:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dicdef with no google hits. Asks if I want necroticism, which is mostly about an album. Tuf-Kat 04:11, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • My guess is that this is a botched translation. Delete unless someone rescues it before them, in which case probably still delete. --Kelly Martin 08:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. probably misspelled. not worth saving.Cleduc 08:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hoax. Tuf-Kat 04:12, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nonsense. Cacophony 04:38, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Young person vanity, perhaps?. jni 06:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity smurf. Cleduc 07:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Rje 12:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

He's in the optical importing business, which doesn't make him notable enough for an article. Tuf-Kat 04:13, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. Lacrimosus 06:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Cleduc 07:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delte. --Wikimol 10:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rje 12:56, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 14:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Within an inch of speedy. Letter about Thomas the Tank Engine. DJ Clayworth 04:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • delete Paul August 05:07, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should be speedy. Cleduc 08:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and yes, this will probably soon be a speedy. Wyss 04:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

apparent nonsense google Michael Ward 05:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, either vanity or hoax or both. Lacrimosus 06:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. hoax. Cleduc 07:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Massively not worth a separate article. Should really be one sentence in Ali G. CXI 05:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Waste of VfD's time. If you yourself think it should be merged then do so and make this into a redirect. -- Netoholic @ 05:51, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Do you mean it should be "one sentence" in Ali G Indahouse? Regardless, merge and redirect. --Slowking Man 06:01, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cleduc 07:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Kappa 15:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Megan1967 02:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. GRider\talk 19:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fancruft. If it is really all that importent, merge with Vegeta (which already has an outline of the attack. ~ mlk 06:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Only one arm? Delete. Lacrimosus 06:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with Vegeta. jni 06:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge no hurry Kappa 16:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. P Ingerson 16:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete: subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All that is intresting has been merged. Sure no more than Vegeta's second most powerful attack. To execute this attack he charges up a huge ball of energy and unleashes it on the target. He uses this attack to destroy Android 19. is required? This article should be deleted. ~ mlk 06:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~