Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam's Formula


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Liam's Formula

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Original research, non-notable "theorem", probably intended as an April Fools Joke. Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish  18:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Unreferenced article that openly states that it reports original research completed on April 1. Cullen328 (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not look like a "db-hoax" as the formula is as correct. As correct as 88+12=100, which has no article either. Delete as speedily as possible. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources, self-described as original research. -- Stephen Gilbert (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not an april fools joke it is a formula that was made on april fools day... (just conicidence) where is the fun in showing people a formula that works. If you try to use the maths you will see that it works perfectly as shown in the examples. Why would you want to delete this? I thought wikipedia was about helpful knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamCotterill (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — LiamCotterill (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Reply Have a read of WP:OR and WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a forum for publishing original research, I'm afraid. The reason I suspected it was a joke is that it is far easier to square a number than to go through this convoluted formula. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  21:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. A classic example of WP:NFT. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR and not a useful search term. This can be found, in a different formulation but essentially the same, at Mental calculation. --Lambiam 08:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I hate to bite to a newbie, but if he wants to publish a new algorithm, there are lots of other places to do so, but we can't change our long-standing rules or make a bad exception in this case. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete "Liam's Formula was put together by Liam on Friday the 1st of April. In a chemistry lecture." Sorry, but Wikipedia is not for something made up one day. --MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 10 April 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.