Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konfisakhar space


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Consensus is overwhelming and there is massive verifiability failure, waaah. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Konfisakhar space
Non-notable original research, that is furthermore improperly represented. Google shows zero hits for the idea. Igor Konfisakhar is not a profesor, but an undergrad, a 3rd-place winner in this years Putnam competitions: Photo of Undergrad Team B; respectable but inappropriate. Also he is contrary to this edit he is not rumoured to be a Fields prize recipient. linas 03:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete of course. linas 03:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete The reference work listed is searchable online at Amazon (see ). I find no reference to "fractal" or "Konfisakhar". I think this is probably a hoax, and should probably be speedy deleted. Paul August &#9742; 04:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Being a hoax is not a reason for speedy deletion. Spacepotato 05:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Coredesat 05:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this has to be either a hoax or original research - or both. Madmath789 07:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a rather far out claim, and I'd need to see a reference.  The given reference apparently doesn't contain the material, and some of the other edits by the creator have given me reason to doubt.  -lethe talk [ +] 10:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn -- Xyra  e  l   T  10:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Hoax or not, the actual subject is non-notable. Just because someone misrepresents themselves they're less deserving than someone who simply states they're an undergrad? Seems like it's rewarding dishonesty. ~Kylu ( u | t )  02:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, possible hoax. &mdash; Khoikhoi  03:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. I think this is obviously vandalism (CSD G3). Criteria for speedy deletion says that hoaxes can be speedily deleted unless they are remotely plausible, and this one is riddled with incorrect statements. I'm reluctantly refraining from deleting it myself given Spacepotato's comment, but I did put a warning on the article; I think that's the least we owe to the reader. By the way, I had a look at the book by Schaeffer in the library and I could not find anything of the sort. --Jitse Niesen 05:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bogus reference, nothing in the literature on the celebrated Igor Konfisakhar and K2-fractals, etc.  This is a hoax, part of a series of dubious edits by User:Mathisreallycool. Spacepotato 05:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is there any reason to further delay ridding Wikipedia of a schoolboy prank? I think not. --KSmrqT 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Personally I think the article has *not* been discredited, and the few mentioned google searches go to show that no one has really looked hard enough. I clearly remember this being a topic in one of my advanced analysis courses, and while I may have cited the wrong text, no one has shown that the body of the article does not stand.  --Mathisreallycool 02:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that this comment is by the creator of the article. If the original author cannot provide a citation for this suspicious material, nor can any of the experienced mathematicians here, this gets deleted under WP:NOR. --KSmrqT 19:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. "I can't find it on Google, waaaah" is not a good enough reason to try to throw away articles --MishaMisha 04:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Two voters have said "I can't find it in the reference cited", which is a good reason for deletion. Also, web searches are routinely used as one criterion for notability, and in this case the results not only give no positive support for a "keep", they give evidence that this is a hoax. Please base your vote on your own knowledge of a subject, which I take it here is none. --KSmrqT 19:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no precise mathematical definition of what a "Konfisakhar space" is, although there is a vague attempt.  In addition, there is no (valid) reference, and the term does not show up in any articles referenced in MathSciNet, which is peculiar indeed for a topic in an analysis class.  --C S (Talk) 09:38, 23 June 2006 (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.