Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasquatch principle Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sasquatch_principle

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.  Sandstein  18:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sasquatch principle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

To anyone who knows what a Dedekind domain is (and the article presupposes this knowledge, so offers nothing to anyone else) the statement is completely trivial. Essentially we have a page devoted to the observation: if g is an element of a group G such that two consecutive powers ${\displaystyle g^{n}}$ and ${\displaystyle g^{n+1}}$ are both equal to the identity, then g itself is equal to the identity. Even in this regard the observation is feeble; of somewhat more interest and use is the generalization to the case that ${\displaystyle g^{m}=g^{n}=1}$ for relatively prime integers m and n. The latter statement might (possibly) merit mention in some article on group theory; there is no way that there is enough content to merit an entire article.

The name is also problematic, but my reasons for recommending deletion are independent of this: I would feel the same way if the article had some more sensible name like "A criterion for an ideal in a Dedekind domain to be principal." Plclark (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not really enough content for an article. JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Dedekind domain. It seems to have at least some legitimacy, but I can't imagine it would merit its own article. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it seem to have some legitimacy? Plclark (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The fact given in the article is not notable, and the article's title does not appear in the literature (see Talk:Sasquatch principle). Ozob (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We had one of these when I was in elementary school.— Preceding unsigned comment added by mandsford (talk • contribs)
• Delete per Talk:Sasquatch principle and evident lack of WP:Notability. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is a joke (not meaning to be rude). To put it in the simplest way, creating this article is like creating an article on why n+1 - n = 1. In fact, one doesn't need to know group theory to understand the triviality of the article.

I don't think there is need not mention the following but I will do so anyway:

• Why include a whole section on a trivial example?
• Isn't it of equal difficulty, if not harder, to prove the hypothesis in the criterion
• If I understand correctly, the article claims that someone has published the result. I think that this is ridiculous. Topology Expert (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Mathematically trivial. Possibly intended as an article on mathematics instruction, but does not clearly indicate how it is (or even could be) notable in this regard. JackSchmidt (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:12, 5 August 2008 (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.