Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fruit Algebra


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fruit Algebra

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is little more than an inside joke for a small group of physics student. From a mathematical point of view, this is completely useless. As a learning tool, this is probably worse than useless. There is no evidence that anyone outside the group of students has even acknowledged the existence of this game/joke/recreational math gizmo. Pichpich (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A little more research on this subject may be good because unlike what was mentioned above, many people are aware of the existence of such a mathematical system. Even I knew about this system. Many other similar systems were created by mathematicians and scientists.  It would be good to explain why certain fruits were attributed to certain symbols/mathematical operators.  Also, the article is not at all complete since there are many other mathematical operators that exist in this system. --MaxDawsonC (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If it was that well known, it would be easy to find third parties discussing it. You say that "many other similar systems" exist. I'm not sure what you have in mind. I'm not even sure why this even deserves to be called a system. Pichpich (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The article itself almost admits it isn't notable. No 3rd party references, and I doubt there will be any, unless it takes hold as a huge joke in the mathematical community. - Running On Brains (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree with the nominator, little more than some silly inside joke. J I P  &#124; Talk 13:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. A bit of non-notable silliness. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as something I made up in school one day... - UtherSRG (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Similar systems have been around long before the CERN version, and they make a serious point: the symbols are completely arbitrary, and only their properties are important. That said, the CERN version doesn't seem to be at all notable. -- 202.124.75.226 (talk) 09:31, 26 March 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.