Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maths Short Cuts


 * 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. No reason to salt it just yet. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maths Short Cuts

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

contested prod, reason for deletion: WP:NOT, also the subject is unclear and doesn't assert notability. I add that, mathematically, this is very confusing and is certainly not in wide usage. I recomend a salt, only in case of repeated recreation though, see also Wikipedia_talk:WPM. Cenarium Talk 15:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with reasons given by Cenarium. Un-encyclopedic content. Not fixable. Salt. Sunray (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete.as per norms---Ganitha (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete Non-encyclopedic math trivia. --Salih (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Analogous to "short cuts" that guys are prone to take while driving, and that take just as long, or longer than the regular route. Mandsford (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete same as above  Not hing 4 44  Go Irish! 16:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic, incoherent jumble. Unsourced. Not notable. Unfixable. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic badly presented random collection of non-notable original research. Unsalvageable. Please salt so it doesn't get recreated again. --Lambiam 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 17:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears to be a how-to. Looking like WP:SNOW. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete + salt = 3600 n+1 . Unsalvageable, incoherent, no chance of notability/verifiability, apparently a re-creation. Speedy per WP:SNOW. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason to salt this one? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's not justified at this time. So only in case of repeated recreation. Cenarium  Talk 21:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Re-creation and no conceivable use (esp. due to capitalization). It's just my opinion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete but don't salt True it's hard to imagine that an encyclopedic article could appear under the title Maths Short Cuts, barring someone writing a book by that name or something, and I have difficulty seeing it even as a worthwhile redirect. But salting seems overly aggressive/authoritarian at this time -- no need to rub it in. --Trovatore (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Cenarium  Talk 22:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-encyclopedic; also, WP:NOT a how-to. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopaedic. linas (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is possible to imagine an article titled short-cuts in mathematics or something like that that could be a worthwile article, but it would not resemble this article, which is an ineptly written mess. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2008 (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.