Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Analyzing the parabola


 * 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  23:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Analyzing the parabola

 * — (View AfD)

I think this artile is unencyclopedic and should be deleted, merged with Parabola, or transwikied to Wikiversity. Natl1 00:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an article about solving quadratic equations, not about parabolas. There are other articles about quadratic solving methods: Solving quadratic equations with continued fractions, FOIL rule --Infrangible 04:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tidy, and merge with Parabola. Anthony Appleyard 07:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Its a cut and paste from Parabola! --Eqdoktor 07:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think it's the other way around. Take a look at the edit history. Doesn't really belong there. It should probably be in its own article. --Infrangible 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. If it's going to be merged it should go somewhere like quadratic equation or FOIL rule instead of parabola, since it's about solving equations and the parabola is just the means. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Eqdoktor. For those of you saying "merge" or "keep", this article is just a blatant copy and paste of the section by the same name in Parabola. It's redundant information. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, a cookbook, not a proper article.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. It reads like a how-to guide.  —ShadowHalo 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia isn't a collection of indiscriminate information, delete this. --SunStar Nettalk 23:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a how-to, one which leaves several gaps and is not apparently different from the calculations in the standard formula. Gazpacho 04:14, 1 January 2007 (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.