Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Achahboun Conjecture


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Last Achahboun Conjecture

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod. No evidence of notability or that any reliable source uses this name. As stated, this "conjecture" is trivially equivalent to the Goldbach conjecture (assuming a and b are meant to be primes). Looks like an attempt at self-publicity. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per no refs Someone65 (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't seem notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I stand by what I wrote when I prodded this: "This is a trivial restatement of Goldbach's conjecture for 2n, and there is no justification for giving it this new name. As an open wiki, the single source given fails WP:RS." —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article says that it is a "new conjecture", which makes me think it is original research. Ozob (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: As David Eppstein points out, it's just an obfuscated version of Goldbach's conjecture. This kind of thing is one of the reasons why we have the no OR policy.--RDBury (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems to be saying every positive integer is half-way between two primes (which may be equal).  At most this would apply to integers exceeding 1.  I couldn't understand what it said until I read the "open problem garden" item.  So David Epstein is right: It's just a rephrasing of Goldbach's conjecture.  We already have that article. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2011 (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.