Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebbinghaus Flum Thomas

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Stormie 09:07, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ebbinghaus Flum Thomas
This is a hoax article and should be deleted. Ebbinghaus, Flum, and Thomas are authors of a well-known logic textbook. This article clearly doesn't even try to pretend to be an article about the textbook. It's possible that it's trying to explain a theorem attributed to these three mathematicians, but that seems highly unlikely given the incoherent jumble (not even an introductory sentence!) currently on the page. To me, it looks like someone took a logic text (maybe even Ebbinghaus, Flum, and Thomas) and just started writing random stuff from it. --C S 13:09, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Completely unintelligible, even to most professional mathematicians (I am one myself). I concur with everything Chan-Ho says above, except that I wouldn't call it a hoax as I don't think the intent was malicious. -- Jitse Niesen 15:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't make head-nor-tail of the article, and so I doubt it will be possible for anyone who could expand it to realise that. If it is attempting to explain a theorem it fails completely, and Wikipedia would be better served by a request for an article than this nonsense. Thryduulf 15:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The author tried to expand the article, for a period of about 4 days last November, but never really succeeded. No-one else has taken an interest, I suspect partly because no-one has been able to determine what the article was intended to be about. Assuming good faith I suspect difficulties editing articles and lack of time rather than a hoax.  Delete and start again. Uncle G 18:27, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
 * I agree that the math is meaningless, but books are often nicknamed by their authors, so this article could be about the book. Is that the same as deleteing and starting over? If so, I second Sympleko 19:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. As the nominator says, this appears to be an extract from a logic textbook. The contributor was struggling with the formatting, and another editor has then attempted to clean it up. No useful content IMO. Andrewa 20:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The text does not make any sense. EJ 14:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why bother with a vote? The page is patent nonsense. Any administrator can just whack it.--192.35.35.35 19:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.