Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ka Pat number


 * 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. JForget 00:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ka Pat number

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Apparent hoax article; declined speedy (although I didn't nominate it as such). The creator even says on the talk page that it was "recently discovered". Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - obvious hoax: no relevant ghits; only one "recently discovered" source which isn't available for checking; relatively new editor with a history of disruptive edits. Moreover the claim makes no sense if you know anything about maths (which I do) - the alleged source is a very well known treatise on polynomial equations and Ruth-Aaron numbers are pretty much irrelevant. andy (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Regardless of its veracity, it fails verifiability; indeed, it calls attention within its own text to its unverifiability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a hoax. JJ98 (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per David Eppstein. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Andyjsmith. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - complete bollocks. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I declined a G3 speedy because this is not an obvious hoax - it is at least possible that there is something about this number in Al-Khwarizmi which has not found its way, under this name, into Western sources. What is said on the talk page to be "recently discovered" is not the source for "Ka Pat number", but that 6811 is also a Ruth-Aaron number. However, the author's failure to answer my questions on the talk page reinforces suspicions. I posted at Wikiproject mathematics, but no one has provided any confirmation or comment. Hoax or not, it fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - even if it was mentioned, which I very much doubt, that still wouldn't make it notable. Dmcq (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2010 (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.