Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 December 17. The result of the deletion review was endorsed.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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.

WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order

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

Original research and an unencyclopaedic list. Effectively unsourced: the links are to software (a freeware phone app and Wolfram's online app) that can do calculations. No source for the list, its entries or the terms and symbols used. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR and lacking notability. As far as I can tell, the "systematic ordering" has never been published anywhere, and even if it had been I doubt that it is of encyclopedic interest. Ozob (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator both that this is unencyclopedic and that it appears to be original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and unencyclopedic. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as genuine
WP:OR, an apparently new and unpublished mathematical mini-thesis, not matter for a global encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - This article sums up the key question: Why would anyone need to know this? --MrRatermat2 (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a real topic. (They weren't systematically ordered before?) Rschwieb (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per wikipedia:NOTACALCULATOR and above comments.Martin451 23:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:SNOW, could somebody do the honours? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2013 (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.