Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line Theory

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 02:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Line Theory

Line Theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Original research. No reliable sources found. Prod contested by creator who has only edited this. "Line Theory was created by Nishant Shukla in the Spring of 2007. It is a relatively new theory and is still in research." External links are to selfpublished sources, or sites that don't mention line theory or Shukla. Nishant Shukla was deleted in January as not notable. PrimeHunter 15:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Childish WP:OR. Leibniz 16:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no sources provided. --JForget 00:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Interesting to me, but we don't publish original research. Bearian 01:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. —David Eppstein 03:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. Dbromage [Talk] 11:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. So y = ln x looks like a straight line on semi-log paper. That's not an acceptable topic for an article all by itself. And we already have an article on inverse functions. DavidCBryant 19:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I accept the deletion, Dean. This does not belong in an encyclopedia YET. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkmate722 (talk • contribs)

• Comment. That was the creator who contested the prod. Is it WP:SNOW time? Creator also accepted deletion on article in [1] (which I reverted since it doesn't belong there). PrimeHunter 20:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The mathematics in this article appears to be trivial, and expressed in jargon invented by the creator of the page. Probably the novel jargon, which is unneeded, is the only novel thing here. Michael Hardy 20:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Gandalf61 09:09, 28 August 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.