Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometric Negative Value Theorem

:{{la|Geometric Negative Value Theorem}} ([{{fullurl:Geometric Negative Value Theorem|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometric Negative Value Theorem}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Obviously incorrect information but doesn't fit CSD. No hits on a web search. Snow seems likely. Quantumobserver (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy snow; if it is indeed "obviously incorrect" then it falls under G3 as well. Personally, I think it's more like obvious gibberish. Author adds, "based on my original research" and "has not yet been confirmed." --N Shar (talk · contribs) 04:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Some kid thinks he's made a major discovery. Per WP:V and WP:OR if a reason is needed. (I'm sure someone's already formulated a "rule" that any article that includes the author's signature should be deleted, but if not, I claim it as Deor's Postulate.) Deor (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Michael Hardy has been railing about inappropriate WP:CSD#G1 deletions of mathematical articles lately, but this is so incoherent that I think it comes close to qualifying. To be on the safe side, let's call it a snowball rather than a speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as I was unable to verify on Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar, i.e. fail WP:V. The article's author has only contributed to this article and even claims that it is his "original research", which means it fails that policy as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. From the article: "The equation in its simplist form would then be: a⁰+b⁰= c⁰ (a=1, b=1, c=1)= 1." In other words, 1+1=1. This is "obviously incorrect". Baileypalblue (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as obvious misinformation and vandalism. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The fact that this is childishly written is not a reason to delete; it would be a reason to re-write. However, the content, although unclear, is close enough to being clear to make it clear that it's nonsense, and near the end it comes close to confessing that it's original research, clearly forbidden. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.