Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Qualculus

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:45, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Qualculus

Original research at best. Probable hoax. Please see the discussion on this article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Qualculus where you will discover the following: No verifiable info given. No verifiable references given. No credible google evidence found. Article is not intelligible. Sole anon defender is likely orginal author (based on ip location). Michael Ward 18:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. From my examination of it, trying to find references, etc. I'm 100% convinced this is a hoax, but just to be sure I talked to a long time friend getting a PhD in Econ who works with a lot of probability & discrete math and he said this was "bullshit". CryptoDerk 19:06, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The best thing it could possibly be is original research, but I think it's more likely just pseudomathematics. -- Dominus 19:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a hoax to me. Dbenbenn 19:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as nonsense, possible vandalism (hoax). Wyss 19:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The speedier the better. Likely hoax.CSTAR 19:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Big on the examples, small on the actual ideas. Delete --fvw* 19:41, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
• Delete, but certainly no speedy. I'm not convinced this wasn't something real in 1986 — stupider things have been thought of and given impressive names. It's certainly not mathematics, though, and as the WikiProject page points out, if it's not utterly unverifiable, it's completely trivial and unimportant. (No, really.) It could be a bad commercial computer science thing — and of course it could also be a complete hoax (which would in fact get my vote) — but it's not a speedy. JRM 19:41, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning toward delete. It's certainly not mathematics. I'm not sure if it's a hoax, or someone's idiosyncratic ideas, or some bit of flaky computer stuff that was really discussed back then. It reminds me of the stuff produced by non-mathematically-savvy social scientists trying to make their ideas into a formal model. Isomorphic 22:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Hmmm. 26 hits on Google, all but 5 excluded. Two of those included were Urban Dictionary. If it were serious, surely on the Universities would have an article? NO hits on Google groups and that archive contains just about every fringe concept you can imagine. I'm thinking delete.Icundell 00:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like a hoax, if it's not it is completely unimportant. Rje 00:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete if not confirmed by a high-quality reference until the end of the vfd period. Andris 13:34, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like "original research"; too sincere to be hoax. Whatever it is, it isn't mathematics. The fact that it apparently first appeared in 1986 but without any followup work for 18 years strongly suggests non-notability. Terry 19:20, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable: it's supposed to be a computer science term, yet neither the ACM Digital Library nor the ACM Guide to Computing Literature returns any results. --MarkSweep 05:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.