Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BCKWSystem

Add to this deletion debate


 * Delete. I don't see reasons above, but it looks like original research and is not very encyclopedic. It also fails to explain just what this system is. =b Fennec 05:22, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Clean up. Seriously. Fennec 13:49, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Was originally listed by User:Ihcoyc, don't know the reasons, no comment at this time. - Hephaestos|&#167; 05:25, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find anything about this on google, but I don't actually know anything about combinatorics, so I will abstain. It certainly seems to be idiosyncratic. -- Friedo 06:12, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It appears to be genuine, but I don't know if it's original or not. Dysprosia 09:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This looks credible to me, and the works quoted are well-known references in the field. See Talk:B,C,K,W System for (many) suggestions for improvement, but none of them are VfD matters. Andrewa 10:09, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I tried to list this, but was stymied by the new format. At any rate, it seems to be: 1.) about some guy's thesis; 2.) so lacking in context as to be completely unintelligible; and 3.) full of dubious looking "equations" with terms like BIIIIIII.  Smerdis of Tlön 12:49, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
 * Hmmm. 1.) It's not original research, see the talk page. 2.) and 3.) Is this just that you're not familiar with similar topics? Some quite valid treatments (not ours) of the halting problem look very like this, for example. Andrewa 23:28, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * You get a lot of things that look like that in logic-related math work... Based on the discussion that has gone on at the talk page, I say keep now. Dysprosia 23:33, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that, at least as the article is currently written, only those who already know what it is talking about can make heads or tails of it. They don't need the information it contains; and for those who lack that background, it is gibberish.  Smerdis of Tlön 01:52, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Good points. I'd agree that to those who lack sufficient background it would look like gibberish, and I guess you're saying you are a case of this. But that's true of any written material, even writing itself. I don't agree it's useless to the point that anyone who can read it already knows it all, and I'd be counter example to this myself. And I certainly agree there is lots of improvement possible, see the talk page. That's all part of the project, and not a reason for deletion. Andrewa 02:59, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I will withdraw this request for deletion. I am persuaded at least that it is not idiosyncratic, original research, or vanity; and that others recognise the subject itself as valid.  While all by its ownself, the text on the page is pretty hopeless, that text may not be utterly useless to someone who wants to work it into a semi-adequate article.  I suspect that the table of "Axioms" might still belong on Wikisource rather than here; but they have an intriguing Finnegans Wake quality to them in any case.  Smerdis of Tlön 04:54, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)