Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postulate of Numerical Relevance


 * 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Postulate of Numerical Relevance
Nom and vote Del. As the author says, this is dumb. Breathtakingly dumb. It was speedied under G1, but alas, not WP:PN, being specifically excluded there in falling short of
 * Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.

An intelligent person with an introductory knowledge of differential calculus can see that Aaron has, in an awkward way, postulated that "relevant" means means the same as "varying with respect to some variable". It makes enough sense that it has a clear meaning, in contrast to things that make so little sense that you can't be sure they are false ideas. This deserves deletion as Original research and as a Non-notable idea, so worthless that its falsehood has needed no discussion until it was dumped here. --Jerzy•t 23:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Cmt. I've history-merged Aaron's Postulate of Numerical Relevance, whose substance is insignificantly different into this. The restoration of the deleted version is not yet complete. --Jerzy•t 00:15, & 01:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, patent nonsense, WP:NOT for things made up in school, yadayada. Gazpacho 00:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. ManoaChild 01:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original patent nonsense. Makemi 04:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete it anyway, it's the spirit of nonsense if not the letter. --  stillnotelf   has a talk page  04:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not the spirit of patent nonsense at all. The patent nonsense criterion is specifically targetted at articles that are irredemably incomprehensible.  It is not targetted at articles that are unverifiable or original research, since it takes more than 1 editor to make that decision.  Please do not abuse the patent nonsense criterion. Uncle G 04:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it qualifies as original research because I don't think it's research at all. Either way, I'm not insisting that we get rid of it ASAP, just voting that it can be deleted sooner rather than later.  (Sorry if I set off your administrator-protect-policies-radar.)  --  stillnotelf   has a talk page  05:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The emphasis in the original-research prohibition is on original rather than research, so quibbling over the definition of research is missing the point. We do established knowledge, and original research or original speculation is just a step toward creating established knowledge. (And BTW, this article is an attempt at math and philosophy, two areas where research doesn't mean experimentation, but a very high proportion of sitting there trying to refine a feeling into a well-defined idea, and then sitting there working out what the consequences of that idea are.) --Jerzy•t 06:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete patent nonsense. --Terence Ong 09:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Patent nonsense or merely nonsense, either way.    --Lockley 19:19, 23 January 2006 (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.