Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapman's Problem


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Chapman&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I found this article with a proposed deletion template, but deletion had previously been contested so it can't be deleted by that procedure. The reasons given by the taggers were: "'Cannot find any sources that discuss 'Chapmen's Problem' (or puzzle). See WP:N for more information on the criteria for Wikipedia articles. To avoid deletion, you need to cite reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of this problem and that validate that this is its name. Thanks.'" and "'Ran a Google check and found no evidence of significance.'" I too have been unable to find any independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a journal for initial publication of a cool math problem someone thought up one day in school and blogged about. Come back when there is adequate coverage of it in mathematics journals or elsewhere. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The author and I were discussing this over at User talk:Ommegang17 and we've given it a bit of time. It seems there aren't any such sources and apart from the single blog link and no explanation as to who Chapman is has emerged. Seems to be WP:OR and/or non-notable. We've given this article as much of a chance as it needs for now. Zachlipton (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this is surely a solved problem since it is isomorphic to the number of unordered tree structures containing the given number of nodes. At any rate nobody else seems interested in something scribbled in the margin of a blog. Mangoe (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Since I was one who tagged this article for deletion, I find it should be deleted due to lack of (reliable) sources or citations, and notability.  Angelo  ♫ 22:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I know this is trivial, but "per all the above" (deletes). Could be notable some day, but too much original research at this point. Just another delete recommendation based on examining the links and positions posted above. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Definitely interesting, very original, and I'd be interested in finding out more directly from the article creator. However, it's still a delete-- one of the cardinal rules here is WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought."  Our purpose is very unoriginal, preserving things that have already been published and attained such a degree of notability that people already know of them.  I've not heard of this before, so I won't dispute that it's originated with the creator or with Chapman; ironically, if someone else already discovered this, it would be a keeper.  This is one of the most original of our original research  contributions, but still original research.  Sorry. Mandsford 02:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2011 (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.