Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H numbers

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] H numbers

The article is either patent nonsense or original research. Markus Schmaus 12:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research, link added back from the listed site to give the ideas legitimacy, so could be construed as advertising, &/c. Dysprosia 12:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I imagine the term "H number" is quite difficult to search for on Google, so I don't trust a negative result from a search like that. I would prefer to give the author a chance to justify that this is not original research. Dmharvey Talk 13:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The author now appears to have indicated that this is original research. Dmharvey Talk 02:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; I agree with Markus. Not that hard to search for "h number" with respect and I couldn't find any supporting hits. The nearest was a reference to Harshad number which appears to be quite different jamesgibbon 14:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I mean difficult in the sense that, for example, a search for "B space" is unlikely to help you work out that a B space is really just an old name for a Banach space. (Although you do get a very amusing hit at Functional Analysis). Dmharvey Talk 15:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. On that website, at http://www.hnumbers.com/hnumbers.html they refer to the Wikipedia article, and in the Wikipedia article they refer to that website. All looks very strange, and the article is badly written. No google hits for this topic. Looks like somebody pushing his/her pet math research. Oleg Alexandrov 17:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep if it can be expanded to provide context. Otherwise delete. — JIP | Talk 17:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, rather unoriginal name. Charles Matthews 20:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Oleg Alexandrov. Dcarrano 23:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh dear, looked vaguely plausible, until one reads about H_5 on the web page. linas 18:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, not understandable. From the website (www.hnumbers.com): "My aim is to find the Theory Of Everything through the least effort," which does not give me much confidence. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Defining an new non-real number as makes sense and creates a new "dimension". This article introduces as if it was yet another "dimension" expansion. An ambitious reasoning but still a mistake any high school level student should not make. is just another complex number and adds no new dimension. And this is not the only incorrection. Nabla 20:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nn. --Trovatore 05:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Whoops--I think I got the acronyms wrong; should be "per nominator". Doesn't change anything, I guess. --Trovatore 05:39, 21 July 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.