Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binatorix


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Binatorix

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No GS or Google books hits for either binatorix or "binary toroidal matrix". Neither of the cited sources has anything to do with the subject of the article: the first source is not even a mathematical source, and the second source has something about circular binary sequences (a one-dimensional object), not toroidal binary matrices (a two-dimensional object). The subject seems to be WP:MADEUP/WP:OR. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete - Blatant WP:HOAX. Eduemoni↑talk↓  12:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete — I don't think it's a hoax, but I do think it's original research.  The author appears to be claiming to have found a 2-dimensional analogue of a de Bruijn sequence.  Spectral sequence (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems to be in a strange place between madeup, or identical to a De Bruijn torus. Chris857 (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good find! I'm changing to Redirect to De Bruijn torus.  Spectral sequence (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with Chris857 that the math object described seems closest to a De Bruijn torus; it seems also related to m-sequences and Gray codes. But I could find no mention of a 'Binatorix' outside of a single personal Google page; the name seems made up. There are no reliable sources to establish Binatorix as a valid search term for a redirect. The synthesis of this with the Borges story also seems original research. Because of the near nonexistence of this topic, I will recommend 'delete' rather than 'redirect'. The 'binatorix' entry in List of matrices should also be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect. (0,1)-matrices are certainly important, and toroidal (0,1)-matrices (the apparent subject of this article) do come up in some circumstances such as the simulation of cellular automata as well as the aforementioned de Bruijn tori. But the title, and the entire current contents of the article, seem to be a violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR. I don't think a redirect is appropriate, both because the title doesn't appear anywhere in the scientific literature and because de Bruijn tori are a somewhat different concept (they don't have to be binary and they do have to have the property of containing all square submatrices of a given size, something that doesn't seem to be true of the subject of this article). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. As the originator of the "binatorix" entry I am glad someone pointed out the similarity to De Bruijn torus, which is very relevant. "Back to the drawing board", as my supervisor used to say. Breggen (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NEO/WP:MADEUP title makes it useless as a redirect. No official comment on the content, but I doubt it's notable enough. Ansh666 06:22, 3 August 2013 (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.