Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colinear Ratio


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 05:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Colinear Ratio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article content doesn't make any sense, despite seemingly logical at first glance and having a few citations. Edit history is rather suspicious as well, despite multiple edits from multiple authors. EdSaperia (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article is incoherent, sources don't match the content, and DDG queries for "(haxl|facebook) (colinear|collinear) ratio" turn up nothing. The ECCV and computer vision textbook references are a red herring, AFAICT. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 18:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete&mdash;I did my own google scholar checks without the "facebook" term and concur; regardless of the state of the article, the topic is not notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article reads like a sales-pitch, a glossy framework with no content. Talk about Lagrangian points and complex mathematical formulas is flim-flam even in the context of mathematical modeling. References are not to the statements made but rather to something related to something in the statement, such as the reference to Lagrangian points being a biography of Lagrange and not about how this physical concept is being modeled in the data analysis realm. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious hoax.  Only the first reference ostensibly mentions the presumptive topic of the article (here).  But this clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the article.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. As one of the authors of this Article, I take offense to your comments. How is this a sales pitch?  We are trying to describe how the Colinear Ratio determines performance by eliminating the fog of time.  Stationary measurement is exactly why the Lagrangian points are referenced.  True that we didn't layout the actual formula, because we are not given access to the formula.  I will be more than happy to try and edit the article to be easier to understand, but for you all to make statements like "Obvious hoax"...is offensive.  We may be new to Wikipedia, but we are attempting to share some knowledge about a subject matter that many people find interesting and valuable for their work. User:Richard95355  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.192.35.190 (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * By eliminating the "fog of time"? That also seems like a term that was invented just for the purpose of this hoax.  The cited reference for "fog of time" does not even mention this concept.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Likely hoax. NickCT (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I declined this AFC as it did not make any sense. as you can see in the history. The current article is not much different. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Seems like hoax. SmileBlueJay97 talk 13:31, 1 September 2014 (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.