Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invalid number theory

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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Invalid number theory

Hoax? Page creator doesn't seem to know the concept of modulus, and Google returns 1 hit for "invalid number theory", in a totally unrelated context . DS 13:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and if this one goes, so too should the article on INT's purported creator, Michael Talks (a name inherently ungoogleable). DS 13:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete BOTH of them nonsense --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 14:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete both. OR, and nonsensical OR at that. I'll VfD Michael Talks. Brighterorange 14:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete nonsensical original research. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:28:49, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
• Delete. Attempt to create a term, ala original research. - Chairboy 15:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. *FLASH* computers do what they're designed to do *FLASH*. Gazpacho 17:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it's not tosh, it's original research. And we'll need to unpick the links to this from pages such as Software testing, (link created by same author).Alf 19:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A new programmer rediscovers GIGO. ManoaChild 21:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. --Carnildo 22:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - junk/original research - Tεxτurε 16:36, 29 August 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.