Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diagon (math)

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diagon (math)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I suspect a hoax, no relevant references in the article... the creators of this article did also write the suspect Chrystophos_Rymannos and Nestor Cheninus articles, that i just nominated for afd Melaen (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Author(s) also responsible for the spurious Rymannic Palimpsest. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. The sources either don't mention the topic or are just nonsense (one of the sources listed is the Time Cube website). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a sophomore in my college math program, and we definitely talk about the diagon, though I am not sure about this "Nestor Cheninus". Also, is it possible that the sources are the hoax? Either way, I recommend editing though not deletion. - PabloGanon

Speedy delete as hoax. Google search finds nothing except Harry Potter references. Nothing on encyclopedia britanica. Google "define:" search reveals a German reference that translates to a part on a tank.--v/r - T P 02:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this article and I am a junior studying math in college. I recently learned about this idea of a diagon from my proffesor, and thought it was interesting. When I tried to find out more, I found that it wasn't on wikipedia, so I decided to create the article. As for the google searches: the diagon is often known as a biangle, these are two names for the same thing, as the definitions of both prove. A search on biangle yields more mathematical results. Sorry for the confusion, if after this you still feel the need to delete, feel free. -- Infobiac1(talk) 6:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy speedy delete • Hoax. Author has perpetuated a number of deception upon the community. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.