Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero proof

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. — JIP | Talk 16:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zero proof

The proof mentioned in this article is flawed. As is mentioned on the bottom of the article, since it involves dividing by 0, so it doesn't seem like a valid article since it is not a valid proof. Akamad ^{Merry Christmas to all!} 07:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as fallacious proof. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with invalid proof, maybe? --King of All the Franks 08:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I noticed on the invalid proof article, there is a proof to show that 2=1, which is almost exactly the same as the one shown on Zero proof. - Akamad ^{Merry Christmas to all!} 11:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to invalid proof. Kappa 18:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to invalid proof --Quarl 09:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per JimR and Wahltpohl below. --Quarl 22:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The idea is covered by invalid proof, and a Google search suggests that "zero proof" has a quite different common meaning relating to non-alcoholic beverages. -- JimR 06:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Kappa. Stifle 13:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero proof is not a standard term for this particular form of invalid proof, so I see no reason for the redirect. -- Walt Pohl 17:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely agree with Walt Pohl. --Meni Rosenfeld 17:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article consists of only misleading comments and an invalid proof. The only worthwhile content (example of invalid proof) is already in invalid proof. Also, the example given has no standard name of "zero proof" as suggested, so there is no use for a redirect. --C S (Talk) 12:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per others. I don't particularly mind near-useless redirects, but I do think a redirect should bear some rational relationship to the article it points to. --Trovatore 17:22, 2 January 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.