Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proof that 1 = 2

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS.

The votes were 7 delete, 6 redirect. I'm going to redirect it. dbenbenn | talk 08:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proof that 1 = 2
This is already covered at Invalid proof under examples. Delete, nothing to merge that isn't already there. ÅrÐ£nT &dagger; &isin; 02:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. &#9999; Oven Fresh  &#9786;  02:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Invalid proof. Megan1967 03:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Invalid proof. It's already covered completely there.  Antandrus 03:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's already in Division by zero. RJFJR 06:25, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats great. Require someone to understand the answer when searching for the question. - Taxman 03:58, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't see anyone searching for or linking to this.  Maybe, possibly, for 1 = 2 (which, on preview, I see is a redirect to this).  But even that's dubious. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 06:55, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. I can see people searching for it, or trying to make another article with this name. Kappa 10:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see people searching for this with its exact spacing and phrasing. If we make this into a redirect we might as well make 1=2, 2=1, Proof that 1=2, Proof that 2=1, and any number of other articles into redirects as well.  Which after seeing now, are redirects mostly to this article for deletion, I believe there is no real reason to keep them hanging around, since a user searching for this phenomenon would most likely have to use the search function anyway, which would lead them to the Invalid proof page, where they would find what they're looking for.   ÅrÐ£nT &dagger; &isin;  15:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * They aren't doing any harm by 'hanging around' and they have a good chance of being useful. This "proof" is quite commonly discussed, and I think people would be likely to type in of those things if they were looking for it. But if the admin decided redirecting all of them would be too much bother, I'd understand. Kappa 03:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: For a more general and I think valid (but faceteous) treatment, see my brief treatise on Ridiculous Numbers. No vote. Andrewa 11:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please, delete this page. LeeJacksonKing 15:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No one is going to search for this... Agriculture 04:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. JimmyShelter 09:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. This "proof" is very common and redirects are cheap. - Taxman 03:55, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Invalid proof. Neutralitytalk 16:58, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.