Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occurrences of numerals


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Occurrences of numerals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Disputed PROD. IP editor had argued, "Does not appear to be encyclopaedic content. No clear subject, and lots here with the appearance of original research or a personal essay." On the one hand, this is kind of a formality since the IP can't nominate for deletion; on the other, I read the article, and it's highly problematic, to say the least. In other words, I support deletion. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article is WP:OR and nonsensical. --Pmedema (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge - Isn't this just a version of Numerology with one particular author's spin? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It has nothing to do with numerology.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I almost want to say speedy deletion here, as this material needs to be fundamentally rewritten to be encyclopedic; it's just not accessible. To boot, I don't really get what the topic is at all.  And yes, I agree that the article in its current state feels very much like an essay.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 19:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I proposed its deletion and the reasons I gave also apply here. Please note that I also proposed the deletion of Charles Sanders Peirce's type–token distinction, which is very similar in style, tone and lack of encyclopaedic content.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I see no reason that this alleged 'topic' deserves a separate article; no appropriate sources have been shown to dispute that opinion. Igor the bunny (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure this is quite so clear cut, and the title of the article may well be part of the issue. Searches show enough information relating to John Corcoran's work on string theory on JSTOR and Scholar to raise a question mark. There is no doubt that it's a poor essay, but that's not the point here: is it a valid topic that can be re-written into something useful, rather than just deleted. (Ditto for Charles Sanders Peirce's type–token distinction on JSTOR and Scholar, which is a PROD (so far) to go undiscussed and unviewed, rather than an AfD. - SchroCat (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Essay, not nearly referenced enough to tell if it's of any value. BMK (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an essay by someone who appears to be trying to understand some of the ideas of the type-token distinction in the philosophy of mathematics and logic. The topic itself belongs in Type–token distinction (which is a really poor article on a notable topic). "Occurrences of numerals" looks to be made up and is not used in the philosophy of mathematics or logic. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - this reads more like an Open University lecture than an encyclopedia. At best it could be moved to another website, but it doesn't belong here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This would need to be started from scratch to be an encyclopedic article. Also concerns about original research. Chillum 20:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Poorly sourced essay by a well-meaning, but inept student who is trying to wrap his mind a legitimate, but complex, topic already covered in another article. Nothing worth merging or saving. Gets an E for effort, but that doesn't translate into notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete As noted, this is indicative of an inept student and should be addressed in the type-token distinction entry.Maxxx12345 (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2015 (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.