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. MBisanz ^talk 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 2Z-N correlations[edit]

The 2Z-N correlations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unencyclopedic as a freestanding article. Article as it is right now has absolutely zero context. The issue is related to Ronen's number which was Afd'd per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen's number.

The underlying concept has been published, but perhaps a WP:COI issue despite publication.

Even if the concept was notable, this article makes no sense right now. Shadowjams (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom; no context to establish the importance of the subject. If such a concept is (verifiably) accepted by the wider scientific community, it belongs in a suitable parent article. EyeSerene^talk 13:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• delete a nonsense article as it stands. Abtract (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Useless. If someone can add some coherent substance to it, they better do it pretty darn quick, as there is nothing now. Wwheaton (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete due to lack of meaningful content. Anaxial (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[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.