- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Charles T. Gidiney ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of the article isn't really notable except for a crank claim to have found an exact rational value for pi. But such claims have been common and don't really establish notability on their own. Even the reporting on it from the time was pretty minor. Everything else is just bootstrapping from almost exclusively 19th century primary sources. Deacon Vorbis ( talk) 01:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- delete. Per nomination. Consists mostly of the sort of information you could compile on almost anyone, from census and similar records, while the main claim to fame is far too little for notability.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 10:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. Not notable and I am seeing a racial undercurrent that I find very distressing. -- Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 20:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per all the above; falls on the wrong side of WP:ONEEVENT. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:52, 23 July 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.
- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Charles T. Gidiney ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of the article isn't really notable except for a crank claim to have found an exact rational value for pi. But such claims have been common and don't really establish notability on their own. Even the reporting on it from the time was pretty minor. Everything else is just bootstrapping from almost exclusively 19th century primary sources. Deacon Vorbis ( talk) 01:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- delete. Per nomination. Consists mostly of the sort of information you could compile on almost anyone, from census and similar records, while the main claim to fame is far too little for notability.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 10:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. Not notable and I am seeing a racial undercurrent that I find very distressing. -- Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 20:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per all the above; falls on the wrong side of WP:ONEEVENT. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:52, 23 July 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.