Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New divisibility by 14 rule was found by Ethem Deynek, Turkish teacher;

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 per WP:SNOW. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

New divisibility by 14 rule was found by Ethem Deynek, Turkish teacher;

New divisibility by 14 rule was found by Ethem Deynek, Turkish teacher; (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consists of poorly sourced mathematical examples; possibly Original Research. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 01:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - No evidence that any independent sources exist with which to establish general notability.- MrX 01:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 01:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Snow delete per WP:NFT. I'd tag it for a WP:CSD#A11 speedy deletion, except for the part in A11 about credible claims of significance; divisibility tests can be useful, so I wouldn't want to claim that this is obviously and totally unimportant. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I would have originally tagged it for A11 except for that very part. Now that I think of it, a PROD would have been more appropriate, but I'll stick with my choice for an AfD. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 22:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Not only is this article completely unsourced, the method for testing whether a number is divisible by 14 is written in such poor English that I don't understand how to apply it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. In addition to being so badly written as to be difficult to decipher, and having only a probably unreliable, and certainly spammed source, it's wrong, producing a "yes" result for 7. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
• delete whether correct or not (too badly written to easily discern) such a trivial rule has no place here. If it were a notable rule or find perhaps, but the title implies not.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• I am closing this discussion. The rule described seesm to work only for 6-digit numbers and there is no evidence that the reference given really exists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2015 (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.