Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesso's undersampling theorem

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. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lesso's undersampling theorem

Lesso's undersampling theorem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This seems to be a hoax. No web of science hits for the author, and wikipedia provides the only google hits. But for some reason I though WP:PROD wasn't quite appropriate. Delete. Inner Earth 14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete No such theorem found on google scholar. No such theorem found in any standard DSP book.(I have got the notable ones by John G. Proakis and Oppenheim right here at my desk). Complete hoax. voldemortuet 15:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It certainly sounds plausible, and through Google I've found a Paul Lasso (See first creation of page) that has published a paper and lives in the UK. That said, the article isn't on Paul Lasso, and I cannot find anything about the undersampling theorem. It could be true, but without references or support, there's no way we know. --MECU≈talk 15:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Why not keep and see what develops? Valters 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The math is correct. That doesn't mean this is a valid stand alone theory, however. It seems like it's a simple extension of the Nyquist Theorem. Dstanfor 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It might be right, but I bet it isn't remotely original, and the lack of proof rather suggests it isn't. Average Earthman 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. With no hits on Google and no references, even if the math is correct, this is original research at best and a hoax at worst. Either way it has no place in Wikipedia. Verkhovensky 21:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per voldemortuet FirefoxMan 16:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research at best. —ShadowHalo 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - 0 google hits implies that he's created a new, albeit mathematically correct, theorem. But the proper place to publish this is a scientific or mathematical journal, not Wikipedia (until it achieves notability). Patstuart^talk|edits 13:27, 13 December 2006 (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.