Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buism


 * 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. Alexf(talk) 16:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Buism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Disputed (endorsed) PROD. Nominally a non-notable neologism, but actually a WP:Coatrack which comes down to a bio of a non-notable academic. And a possible hoax; Google has seemingly never heard of the Bui Theorem or Bui Institute and no refs are provided. Earlier versions are more clearly hoaxy. 9Nak (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is pretty clearly a hoax article. Age Happens (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete A hoax -- note the mention of an Australian high school mathematic course. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax. Drawn Some (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, good call on Dougweller's findings. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 15:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which speedy criteria do you think it meets? None of them look appropriate to me. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It falls under vandalism, obvious hoax. Drawn Some (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm working on a precedent I've observed - a lot of people seem to go for that one with a modicum of success. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 16:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - definitely a hoax. The so-called 'Bui theorem' is actually just two fairly trivial integrals which certainly did not originate in 2008. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:14, 4 May 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.