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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diametric analysis

[edit]

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

Prior Prod, recreated... still non-notable, non-referenced, admitted original research Skier Dude (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, and fairly meaningless OR at that. Yunshui (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Is this supposed to mean something? Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: a formula to understand one polar position and refract that understanding to better understand its opposing polar. An example of this could be how gravitation governs the motion of inertial objects in our solar system and then using this model to reason other solar systems. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: The gravitation in other solar systems works in an opposing polar way than that in our solar system? SD this per G1. Patent nonsense, please.--Ben Ben (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – incoherent gibberish with no meaningful content. --Lambiam 20:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete—it seems that the term is actually used in various scientific fields, but this isn't how it's used, and it doesn't seem to actually be discussed by any of the sources which use it, hence probably not notable even if the article were to be blanked and rewritten to be about whatever diametric analysis really is (it seems to be many things, depending on field).— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, it means analysis, mostly statistical analysis, of the diameters of whatever is being studied (trees, collagen fibrils, droplets, gas bubbles, anything with roughly circular cross sections), with all the inherent ambiguity of the word analysis – not a specific topic one could write a coherent article about. --Lambiam 05:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for clarifying! why are these "analysts" limiting themselves to things with roughly circular cross sections, do you suppose, when any subset of a metric space has a diameter which is potentially amenable to analysis, whether statistical or otherwise?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete— I agree with Mangoe; it certainly fits the parameters for patent nonsense. --Matt Westwood 22:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't normally nitpick, but since it's been cited three times in this discussion - WP:G1 is not suitable for articles like this; in fact it specifically excludes "implausible theories". If the page said "Diametric analysis widdle waddle pling plong fshhhh", that would be G1-able, but this, although nonsense, is not techinically nonsense. Make of that what you will, I need to go to bed. Yunshui (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2011 (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.