Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond theory

Note by original author
The deletion debate below currently appears in the Google search results for "diamond theory." It may not make sense to those who no longer have the original Wikipedia article, which was deleted and is not recoverable, to refer to. Those who arrive here after a Google search may instead refer to the web page Diamond Theory for further details on the content discussed below.

Also, the following material from Wikipedia's own editorial instructions indicate that the debate has not been properly closed. -- From deletion process:

Header and footer text
After closing the discussion, the page will look like this: - This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was RESULT. my name date PageName

DISCUSSION THREAD

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

..................... END OF NOTE BY ORIGINAL AUTHOR ..................

Cullinane 04:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion

 * Diamond theory - Content not sufficiently encyclopedic, a personal theory. -- Charles Matthews 17:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks rather bogus. Andre Engels 17:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a theory from the book titled "The Non-Euclidean Revolution". I'd say keep for now. Anthony DiPierro 20:30, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * No, definitely nothing to do with that. To read about the non-euclidean revolution, see Non-Euclidean geometry, Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky, János Bolyai. The only connection I can find between this and that, is that it's both geometry. Andre Engels 20:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I know what non-Euclidean geometry is. I was referring to a book with that title (see the link). Anthony DiPierro 20:58, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * My doubts aren't about it's being real mathematics, nor about connections to interesting areas - I just suspect it of being 'minor' research, of which there are 1000s of papers put out annually. No connection with NEG Charles Matthews 21:01, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure myself even if it's real mathematics. But 5 days doesn't seem long enough to research this. Anthony DiPierro 21:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It appears to be a possibly interesting elaboration of symmetries in two-dimensional patterns (which perhaps is not even new), created by a non-mathematician in a personal web site and in a self-published book. There actually could be some valid group theory in there (It's not written up as a standard mathematical treatise and I'm not patient enough to dig it out), but the author has, alas, asserted that it yields something revolutionary in a way that borders on is crankery. Specifically he subtly conflates the group theory analysis with something called the "Diamond theory of truth" from a book about the philosophy of science and asserts his particular mathematical analysis restores a lost way of doing mathematics. *sigh*. As it written now, it is masquerading as accepted mathematics, which it is not. -- Decumanus 16:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The author of this "theory" has created lots of stuff on the web to support his views, see, , , , but no evidence that he's attracted a significant following despite this. Andrewa 11:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Someone's pet idea, not encyclopedic. --Zundark 11:11, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)