Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chen-Benson Theorem

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. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 01:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chen-Benson Theorem

• Delete - Gets no hits on Google, may be Original Research, or a hoax (I have advanced calculus skills and I'm not even sure what the article is saying). It may be valid, but I don't think so. I didn't know where else to put this.--WilliamThweatt 19:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Looks like patent nonsense to me, and my 4 years of calculus didn't mention anything nearly as exciting as wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am. --MUSpud2 18:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Looks like nonsense to me too. And as a game physics developer, I've had to do way too much calculus. I would have tagged this for speedy deletion. --John Nagle 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per MUSpud2. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 18:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, possibly Speedy. (Is it patent nonsense if the individual words, and some phrases, make sense, but not as much as a single sentence?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete random calc II student learns about integration by parts, more at 11. (note that the main contributor is KBenson33) Kotepho 19:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Cleanup - This method of solving integrals is especially useful in beginner Calculus and is likely to aid others in the future. If needed (as the author) I can update the article with examples so it is easier to follow. I don't see how it is patent nonsense considering that it makes sense in the Calculus world. I feel that rather than all the trolls biting my head off (re: Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers ), perhaps I could have a chance to revise my article before deleting the work I have put into it? (And no, my username does not have to do with the name of the page, though it is an interesting observation) KBenson33 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)KBenson33

Please do; one or two well-chosen examples might do wonders. If you can also clarify and document the name of this method (Who is Chen? Who is this Benson? Why is this a "theorem" and not a "method"? Has it been published?) it might lead to a "wham-bam-keep-this-theoram" victory in this debate. Or not. Lambiam^Talk 21:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - this is the original contributor of the article in question.--WilliamThweatt 19:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I wrote that I was the author, there's no need to reiterate. KBenson33 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)KBenson33

• Comment - Also, KBenson33, I'm not trying to be argumentative, so please don't take this the wrong way, but here's a nickle's worth of free advice: the phrase "my article" could be taken to mean one has "ownership issues". It's usually better to avoid such usage here on WP.--WilliamThweatt 19:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - By "my article" I simply meant that I was the one who originally contributed the majority of the information to the site, I did not mean to imply ownership. And it's hard to believe you're not trying to be argumentative when shortly after contributing my first entry to Wikipedia I have several people jumping down my back trying to get it deleted, rather than helping it become better or more significant. It's a shame, I'd assume such a vast community would be a bit nicer to newcomers. KBenson33 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)KBenson33

• Comment - K, please don't take things so personal because it's not meant as such. I'm sorry your first experience hasn't been so pleasant. I sincerely hope you have better results next time. We're all just trying to make WP relevant, encyclopedic and the best it can be. It's not about not being "nice", it's just that there are criteria to be met for articles on WP. This is the process.--WilliamThweatt 20:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as it is not verifiable and may in fact constitute original research.--Isotope23 19:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of this term being used, while the principle itself just appears to be 'if you can't do u-substitution, do integration by parts', which isn't especially interesting. -- Mithent 20:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: this isn't a theorem in the first place - it's a heuristic for evaluating integrals, and a rather straightforward one at that. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No theorem is stated. The method is not different from ordinary substitutions; the author seems to think that a separate article is warranted merely because the conventional substitution method is used twice rather than once in a single example. Michael Hardy 01:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Sorry to the author for all the effort to produce an example, but now at least I understand. This is clearly based on the author's misconception that a substitution must be uniform throughout the term, which may be due to the fact that in teaching mathematics the notions of "bound variable" and "variable scope" are usually not introduced and substitution is only taught by example. This "method" does not deserve to be named. I'm still clueless as to who Chen and Benson are or were. Lambiam^Talk 05:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not helpful. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Even if it is useful within a limited scope, it still needs to be verifiable. I agree it's OR. No citations.In1984 22:59, 29 April 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.