Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricrean theorem

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. Tikiwont (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patricrean theorem

Patricrean theorem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This was prodded, with a succinct explanation of why it should be removed: "WP:BALLS". But the prod was removed. Mathematically, it is not incorrect, but the mysterious "Someone" crediting it to "Patrick" at the ridiculously late date of 1988, and the lack of references, marks this as something made up in school one day. β€”David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Snowball delete. He could have come up with a better title, though; not even a single non-Wiki ghit. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The formula is of course correct. Everybody learns it in 7th grade, if not earlier, and to say that someone recently "registered" it is to presuppose that such a thing as such "registrations" exists. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no reliable sources with which to verify the content. Guest9999 (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A novel name for a property too trivial to be named. Zetawoof(ΞΆ) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, as hoax. Paul August ☎ 03:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivial "theorem"; no reliable sources to show it is known by this name. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't be bothered to look this up to confirm it, but I'm sure you'll find that Euclid recorded this over 2000 years before Patrick. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • delete It is an interesting observation that is if I'm not mistaken central to the earliest recorded proof that there are infininitely many pythagorean triplets but it isn't known by this name and doesn't have any sources talking about it or any name I am aware of. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2008 (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.