Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma's Dilemma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Emma's Dilemma
Not notable, trivial content, prod removed by anonymous editor CMummert 14:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable or verifiable. - Aagtbdfoua 15:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- It might be verifiable in the sense that it once was discussed in a book somewhere; I doubt it is original here. Even if one such reference is provided, a single appearance in print does not make a simple combinatorics problem like this notable. CMummert 15:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not even linked to from anywhere as an example; Wikipedia is not a how-to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not sourced or verified.-- danntm T C 22:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Lack of sources is not an AFD criteria, provided that the information is verifiable. It is only notability that I think is the issue here. CMummert 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- But information can only be verified through sources, surely. And notability (as the guideline describes it) is having multiple independent sources, so if notability is the issue then lack of sourcing certainly is. Trebor 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- To nominate an article for deletion in good faith, you need to honestly believe the article is unverifiable (which is misleadingly called original research) or not notable. This article's topic is verifiable, even though it has no sources here to verify it, but it is not notable. CMummert 03:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean by not notable then? (Just an aside, we obviously agree this article should be deleted.) Trebor 07:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Per WP:NOTABLE, the question is whether multiple published sources have covered this topic (but not whether these sources are actually listed in the article). CMummert 12:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh okay, I think I'm following you now. Trebor 18:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Per WP:NOTABLE, the question is whether multiple published sources have covered this topic (but not whether these sources are actually listed in the article). CMummert 12:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean by not notable then? (Just an aside, we obviously agree this article should be deleted.) Trebor 07:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- To nominate an article for deletion in good faith, you need to honestly believe the article is unverifiable (which is misleadingly called original research) or not notable. This article's topic is verifiable, even though it has no sources here to verify it, but it is not notable. CMummert 03:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- But information can only be verified through sources, surely. And notability (as the guideline describes it) is having multiple independent sources, so if notability is the issue then lack of sourcing certainly is. Trebor 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Lack of sources is not an AFD criteria, provided that the information is verifiable. It is only notability that I think is the issue here. CMummert 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It appears to be a GCSE coursework question, from the G-hits. It doesn't appear to have generated coverage in independent sources, so non-notable. Trebor 23:29, 7 January 2007 (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.
