Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacetime finance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spacetime finance

Spacetime finance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article "demonstrates" that financial transactions are subject to the laws of space/time, which is self-evident. If this article were necessary, you could replace "finance" by any noun and have a potential article. Non-notable, possibly WP:FRINGE, possibly no reliable sources (both sources seem to be from one author) Accounting4Taste:talk 23:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Luckely consensus and democracy did not made earth flat, science solved it and in long run time went with science (not trying sarcasm), feel free to delete and let time be judge. comment added by Teller33 (talk • contribs) 11 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Judging by the attitude of the article's creator demonstrated below, a SPA whose contributions have been limited to this article and AfD discussion, I'm going to ask that if the consensus is for deletion that the closing administrator consider SALTing the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't demonstrate notability, very new idea. Lawrence Cohen 23:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Why should this page be deleted? Is there anything mathematical incorrect with the theory? If so please point it out. The author claims it is not practical relevant, but it is still a theory that is consistent and bullet proof. The theory is published in a book by John Wiley & Sons Publishing 2007 as well as in a mathematical finance magazine 2004, both sources can be checked by a simple google search. The theory is not very new and have also been presented at several leading universities, so far nobody have attacked the theory or proven it wrong. according to wikipedia:

    "John Wiley & Sons, Inc., often referred to as Wiley, is a well-known publishing company specializing in scientific, technical, business related texts, and medical books and journals." I guess wikipedia just is joking?

    Presented at Courant Mathematical Institute New York: http://math.nyu.edu/fellows_fin_math/gatheral/case_studies.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teller33 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The book with this idea is one of John Wiley & Sons best sellers in its scientific category: http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-300229.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teller33 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NOT#TEXT Torc2 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"his article "demonstrates" that financial transactions are subject to the laws of space/time, which is self-evident. If this article were necessary, you could replace "finance" by any noun and have a potential article." I assume this is why the author is invited to give talks about this subject and to write a book about it by a a publisher that according to wikipedia "a well-known publishing company specializing in scientific, technical, business related texts" seems inconsistent to me, but I guess that is what happens when everyone can edit wikipedia.unsigned comment added by Teller33 (talk • contribs) 11 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete a catch phrase used as an article title and a book chapter. If other people start using it as an established concept, then it will become notable. Not everything used as a chapter heading in every book Wiley published is a notable concept. DGG (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sad to see what happened to Wiley. Mathematics is not limited by fundamental laws of physics, btw. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Regarding the "flat earth" comparison above: that's right, Wikipedia is not science. Wikipedia waits for science to do its job, then waits for writers/reporters/experts to write about it, then summarizes it. This concept hasn't made it through the "science" phase yet, much less the reporting phase.) Bm gub (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2008 (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.