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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Light Bulb model[edit]

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

Not remotely suitable as a Wikipedia article. It looks sort of like a text book example to illustrate a mathematical method, except that it is too incoherent to belong in any decent textbook. We don't have articles that just give textbook examples, and also there is no sourcing for it, so no evidence whatever of notability. A deletion proposal was removed by the creator of the article, without any explanation. I think it could be considered to qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A11 as made up by the creator of the article, but I am giving it the benefit of the doubt and bringing it here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads more like an essay or a paper for a math class. The only source in the article is to a Wikipedia article, which in itself is a red flag. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unadulterated essay. Unrelated, but what bothers me more is that it calls itself a "model" while describing a literal scenario. Where's the metaphor, man? (This is because it should actually be called "Modelling a system of lightbulbs" and be posted somewhere besides Wikipedia) 157.235.66.80 (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsuitable for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Question: Specifically what is the counterintuitive result? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to the claim of the author, this article is not similar to "Ant on a rubber rope". The latter fits the categories "Puzzles" and "Recreational mathematics"; the former does not. No counterintuitive result. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The article makes no claim of notability, and the lack of sourcing suggests that the topic is not notable. Ozob (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not even coherent enough to be entirely sure it's not some kind of (time-consuming) prank. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 05:56, 7 November 2016 (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.