Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Da'qwan 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. Michig (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Da'qwan problem

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable mathematical problem. Fails WP:GNG. Likely made up in a classroom. All Google searches for the problem result in newly created social media sources suspiciously created after the article was created by multiple suspect accounts. Attempts to reference the article were done by copying irrelevant references from other articles. Contested proposed deletion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Concur with Gogo Dodo that this fails WP:N. Note: I was the original PRODer. David  1217  What I've done 20:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Simply not notable.  Da'qwan problem and Da'quan problem not found on ZMATH, Google Books or Google Scholar.  Whether or not it's a hoax, a classroom exercise or just something made up one day I don't know, and doesn't really matter.  Deltahedron (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NFT. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - not sure it's a hoax, more likely WP:NFT, but it should go anyway. Stalwart 111  01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is a philosophical concept. It doesn't matter if it's present on scientific websites. Furthermore, its more interesting then most other philosophical concepts Toastedasparagus ''' 03:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC) — Toastedasparagus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * First, probably worth having a read of WP:INTERESTING. Second, it does matter if it has been covered elsewhere or not because the notability of a subject (which must be verified by reliable sources) determines whether or not something is included in Wikipedia or not. If you can provide sources and references that demonstrate the notability of the subject, your arguments here will be given far more weight. Stalwart 111  02:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Although the term "Da'qwan problem" may be a recent invention, a moment or two on Google will show you that this problem does, in fact, exist. Watch a race exemplifying the Da'qwan problem here, here, or even here. Think about it; it's an ancient conundrum. Turtlelova39 ''' 2:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC) — Turtlelova39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's not about whether we can analyse something ourselves and come to a conclusion - the idea must have received coverage in reliable sources elsewhere before it can be covered here. That aside, the signature, style and topic interest suggest (very strongly) that you and User: Toastedasparagus are the same person using two different accounts. But Wikipedia is not a democracy and these discussions are not "decided" by a vote. They are decided by weight of arguments against policy and guidelines and by consensus. So creating new accounts just to "vote" multiple times here will get you nowhere... except maybe blocked. Stalwart 111  03:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You, Stalwart111, are just wrong, while I do know 'Turtlelova49' in real life. We do not have the same account. Secondly, no one suggested this is a democracy. So that argument falls invalid. We are working to get a paper published on JStor as I am typing. ToastedAsparagusunsigned comment added by 71.178.30.27 (talk)
 * Actually, you've just confirmed I'm at least partially right - meat-puppetry is also not okay. If you really are two different people then you should at least try using signatures that aren't formatted exactly the same way. As for sources, I'm glad you're working on publishing a paper but be aware that some might question it's reliability if it's not independent of the subject. Further, Wikipedia still requires significant coverage in multiple sources so one single source likely wouldn't be considered enough. Stalwart 111  08:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - As you can see in the sources provided by Turtlelova39, there are cases where this race has been experimented. The theories suggested in this article however do not meet [WP:NFT]. The article should be edited, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:468:CC0:1:20F:FEFF:FE24:FD1C (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * None of those videos mention the "Da'qwan problem", which is the subject under discussion. See Stalwart111's comment above to Toastedasparagus. The only YouTube video that mentions the "Da'qwan problem" is this, which is obviously an attempt to gin up some coverage of the topic. The video just reinforces my view that this "problem" is made up or a hoax. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. No coverage in academic journals or textbooks. Seems to be made up, doesn't meet the general notability guideline.-- xanchester  (t)  23:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete.  Notability should be more convincing. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Classic example of original research.  DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2012 (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.