Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SIVAHARI THEOREM ON ODD AND EVEN NUMBERS


 * 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 Snow close. The arguments here are overwhelmingly for its deletion, closing a little early. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

SIVAHARI THEOREM ON ODD AND EVEN NUMBERS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Regretfully, it appears that this good faith effort fails our notability guidelines per WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously not an encyclopedia article. --99of9 (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that this is a good faith effort. The results looks like original research, which is disallowed per WP:NOR. I was unable to find the "SIVAHARI THEOREM" in any independent reliable sources, so the topic also seems to fall below general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. A non-notable topic and likely original research suggests deletion of this article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete It is just simple algebra. (X+1)^2=(X^2)+(2X+1)= (the square before)+plus an odd number two greater the last one used for the last sqaure. With e.g. section 1.4 he has just proven that n^4=(n^3)*n. Good luck to the author, but this is the sort of stuff I did at school.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The author does not understand (1) That original research is not allowed here, and (2) That a Wikipedia article does not belong to its initial author. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Entirely OR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The result, although true, is a trivial mathematical observation.  As Martin notes, it follows rather immediately from the fact that $$n^k=n\cdot n^{k-1}$$.  In fact, this simple identity is actually a stronger statement than the one contained in the supposed "theorem" that is the subject of the article.  Claiming a weaker result than a fact that is well-known to most school children as a "theorem" is clear WP:OR.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC) And a very trivial mathematical observation that might be.
 * Delete - interesting, but not encyclopedic. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - thoroughly explained by Sławomir Biały and Mark viking.   78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:05, 4 June 2013 (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.