 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This theory needs more reliable sources to meet the notable requirements. Alphama (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- The theory Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dao's theorem did the exactly what this article had but it was deleted. Give me why with two similar sources, this article can be kept? Alphama (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please see WP:WAX. But also: Dao's theorem only had one good source; this one has two. Dao's theorem is brand-new, WP:TOOSOON to have any evidence of lasting notability; this one is over 100 years old, and yet still has people writing about it recently. Dao's theorem is blatant self-promotion (Dao himself has been making many articles about his own results on Wikipedia), this one clearly not. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- So that guy needs to wait at least 100 years to see his article on Wikipedia, right. LOL Alphama (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dao's theorem has many sources: [1] [2] [3] [4], .. not only one. Alphama (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- One of those is a self-published web site, and the other three are all about different things from each other. Wikipedia articles are on single topics, not about collections of unrelated things that all happen to be called the same. And there is no point in re-litigating closed AfDs on obscure talk pages of unrelated articles. As I already said, you are wasting both of our time. Please find something more constructive to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dao's theorem has many sources: [1] [2] [3] [4], .. not only one. Alphama (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- So that guy needs to wait at least 100 years to see his article on Wikipedia, right. LOL Alphama (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please see WP:WAX. But also: Dao's theorem only had one good source; this one has two. Dao's theorem is brand-new, WP:TOOSOON to have any evidence of lasting notability; this one is over 100 years old, and yet still has people writing about it recently. Dao's theorem is blatant self-promotion (Dao himself has been making many articles about his own results on Wikipedia), this one clearly not. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)