Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newton's fundamental ratio

Newton's fundamental ratio

 * A spoof. Pseudo-mathematical patent nonsense. Speedy delete candidate -- The Anome 07:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * delete -- nonsense Wolfman 08:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, preferably speedily . Patent nonsense that looks more intelligent than your average crackpot article because it uses tags. A classy bit of vandalism. &bull; Benc &bull; 08:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice. --Phil | Talk 09:46, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Bad math, bad science - must be a spoof, surely? Delete - TB 10:45, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hoaxes are not speedy deletes according to the specific cases. Regular delete.  Rossami 13:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent troll. Probably very convincing to non-mathematicians. Surely we should be able to speedy a hoax? If not, that policy needs to change. Delete. anyway, even if we have to wait. &#8212;Rory &#9786; 16:44, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks like a savvy hoax. Might be someone testing Wikipedia's ability to root out plausible-sounding nonsense.  Really ought to be speedy-deleted as complete misinformation. Isomorphic 17:49, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Too many articles that were initially thought to be a hoax have turned out to be valid topics but poorly written. (See Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia above for a recent example that caught me.)  The VfD notice is usually sufficient to alert readers that the article is suspect but you could also edit the article or comment on the Talk page to make your concerns more visible. Rossami
 * Comment: you're right, this probably isn't speedy material. I initially voted for speed myself because hoaxes have a way of appearing to fit one of the official defintions for patent nonsense: Stuff that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head or tail of it. As you've pointed out, to avoid deleting real topics, hoaxes need to be properly examined by a group of editors, not a single admin on speedy. Perhaps we should add hoaxes to the "Not to be confused with..." section on Patent nonsense? &bull; Benc &bull; 19:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Inspected by professional applied mathematician and speedily deleted as patent nonsense:"text that has no assignable meaning at all". The beginning was: In a branch of applied mathematics known as operations research, Newton's fundamental ratio as written in the Principia Combinatorica VI volume expresses the relationship between the positive and negative objects in the subjective perception of a single sentient entity.. This is not a "Prince Alexander" case. We are dealing with exact science here. Mikkalai 21:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Disagree. We've been wrong before on all topics.  And as the holder of an advanced degree in operations research, I would disagree with the allegation that an "exact science" is somehow different.  No one person can be current on every theory, development or change in the field. It was a hoax but it was not patent nonsense. Rossami 21:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This isn't a matter of "I'm well-read in the area and have never heard of this, so it must be nonsense". It's a matter of "being qualified in the area I can recognise that this lacks meaning." It is nonsense in a form such that some readers would not know it, but it is still nonsense. Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" was nonsense whether the publishers could tell or not. &#8212;Rory &#9786; 23:20, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But it is not patent nonsense which, by our definition, is recognizable by everyone.  I'm sorry to be such a stickler on this one but it's an important distinction to me. Rossami
 * Okay, I can see that. But it's not a good idea to have an article that we know is a total lie but that doesn't look like one to many people. Would anyone object to putting a big red box at the top saying "Nothing in this article is true (except this)"?
 * Okay. I added the mentioning that it is listed as hoax. Let readers have some fun, after all. BTW, your point is good, but this is not the "patent nosence" policy says: ...that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head or tail of it. Mikkalai 06:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Beginning already gives it away as lacking any meaning. Nice spoof, though Awolf002 23:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Patent nonsense / spoof / hoax / BJAODN candidate. The sanity of the article's creator is disputed. -- Mike Rosoft 16:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. No non-Wiki Google hits. Someone trying to pull a Sokal. --zenohockey 19:50, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)