Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Number Distribution Series
- 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. per
]Prime Number Distribution Series
- Prime Number Distribution Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be about a single mathematical paper, which is not published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and which has not been the subject of significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
But yet, if you were not to depend on memory usage then you cannot compute Pi(x)? Can you? STOP and THINK!
- Delete per talk) 14:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the talk) 14:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)]
- Delete - As per nominator, this appears to be original research, based solely on the author's non-peer-reviewed work. It has long been argued whether 1 should be categorized as a prime, but 2? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)]
But, if you were to sit the authors arguments against why 2 may not necessarily be a prime then you would have more substantive response than "jumping on the band-wagon". DO think for yourself, rather than being the sheep!
- Delete. Pretty clear-cut case of OR, with the only reference being primary and self-published. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there is nothing wrong with being the first inventor....!!!!
- Delete We don't do "book reviews" of notable peer reviewed journal articles, let alone reviews of self-published material.Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there is nothing wrong with being the first inventor....!!!!
- Delete - without more independent coverage, this fails WP:NPOV). I'm not sure if what the article says is true, and I agree with XOR'easter that FRINGE concerns may apply as well. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)]
- Delete As for me, the article (as well as its sources) is neither true nor false, since sometimes I fail to understand what is claimed. What is meant by "constant equal either to ... or to ..."? And more importantly, what is reported: a theorem? a numerical experiment? something else? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Probably, you know nothing! Well, you speak like someone who knows nothing.... When you know something, please come back to share what you learnt. But, for now, go back to school....
- Delete. WP:FRINGE can be easily established (2 is not a prime, and in at least one section 9 is a prime under his rather fluid definition of prime!).--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)]
- Delete: per nominator --EngiZe (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per arguments above. Mgnbar (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
These words spoken about above are those from those who wants to hide true science, as religion used to do for many centuries to pursue their own agenda, and may be classed as "bad losers". What I mean by that is, as you cannot have provided a formula as these guys behind PNDS have done, you did not win! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclearstrategy8 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- If you want to improve your chances of success, then avoid such ad hominem arguments. Also, the "unpublished and novel techniques" mentioned at the end of the article don't help, because we require Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also, the current disorganized presentation doesn't help. For example, it's not obvious that the "prime number distribution series" is a series at all. Mgnbar (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)]
Wrong! You cannot arbitrarily attack an article. You have to make sense, you have to learn the subject. You have to learn that prime counting function is a series that adds [] products. Unless you grasp these concepts you must not write nonsensical stuff. Take the C++ code provided, compile it, run it, study it and let the code speak! You don't wanna do the job? Then whatever you say has no significance! This work is one of its kind and only very elitist programmers can understand, as the CodeProject community illustrates! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclearstrategy8 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not going to study, compile, and run C++ code off the Internet to verify a Wikipedia article's content. The article should explain itself. I don't know what "[] products" are (unless you mean Lie brackets), but fortunately the article does not appear to use them.
- Even more important than whether the article is nonsense are the concerns about verifiability and original research raised above.
- I see two possibilities for what's going on here. In either case, the article should be deleted. Mgnbar (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
No, unless you are so genius who understands every mathematical formula at one glance you have to sit and do the work... Are you such a person? What is more obvious is than your "two possibilities for what's going on" is that you must be receiving unlawful payments to remove an inventive article. Also, "Mgnbar" does not make any sense, you must not hide behind nicknames but reveal your true identity and your expertise in the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclearstrategy8 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Prime Numbers is not an original research??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclearstrategy8 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 August 2017 (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.