Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choroszucha identity


 * 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. Courcelles 13:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Choroszucha identity

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Original research r.e.b. (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The subject of the article was posted last month to Richard Choroszucha's personal homepage, and then added as a Wikipedia article shortly thereafter by a user named User:Rchoroszucha.  This is clear original research.  Needless to say, there are no relevant Google scholar or Google books hits for "Choroszucha identity" (or variants thereof).   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Salix (talk): 16:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think I've probably seen this in standard vector-calculus books.  It's a product rule.  There are lots of product rules, and they all say the same thing except that each is adapted to the particular situation.  It says just what you would expect it to say.  If it's a valid novel contribution, Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum; there are journals for that.  Naming it after a person should be done only in publications that follow that initial publication, unless an author wants to be bold and name it after himself in his initial publication in a journal; for all I know maybe that actually happens sometimes.  But Wikipedia is not the place for that; we're supposed to write about things that are already out there. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, I think I may not have seen this one before. I think the part that I might not have anticipated without thinking it through was the particular form of the matrix, referred to as the "matrix form of the cross product". Michael Hardy (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. After Michael Hardy's explanation, I agree Wikipedia is not the place for this yet. Thank you.Rchoroszucha (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete searches indicate this is original research, and as has been said above, does not belong on Wikipedia. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR and above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete per MH. Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2010 (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.