Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundiments

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. --JoanneB 14:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fundiments

Okay so it's been some years since calculus but this makes no sense. I can't find anything to support the idea of "fundiments" in calculus. Original research? Mark K. Bilbo 03:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Given that the author also used the mis-spelling "fundemental", I suspect that this is little more than the tautologous notion that the fundaments of calculus are the elements of the fundamental theories of calculus. Uncle G 03:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is either total gibberish, or so deep I just don't understand it :-) --RoySmith 03:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - take it from a college mathematics instructor: the article says nothing. B.Wind 05:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 09:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - if its a mis spelling, it has been done a lot of times before. 449 people that mis-spell the same word in the same way? I don't think so. Of course, dictonary.com says it doesn't exist either so maybe it is a mis-spelling. So yeah, delete. Zordrac 10:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It says nothing meaningful whatsoever. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I should point out (and it pains me to do so) that there is a valid term that may trip up Google searches: "fundament" and "fundiment" are both archaically valid, and they can both refer to the foundation of just about anything. Further, they are used as a polite term for the anus in early 19th century parlance. However, that's a Wiktionary matter. This article is original research. Geogre 12:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • My dad enjoyed used it in the 19th century sense. Gives a whole new aspect to the word "fundamentalist," doesn't it? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Could redirect to Foundations of mathematics I suppose, but, bottom line, this article is unfounded and debased. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And there are also "fundamentals" and "foundations" for underwear. (The Foundation Series as a saga of Victoria's Secret?) Geogre 16:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Take it from a math major, this article content is nonsense. novacatz 08:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Preaky 23:47, 1 December 2005 (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.