Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parent rogic 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parent rogic theorem

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

This appears to be a hoax. The cited publication by Parent and Rogic does not exist, and there are no references to this theorem or its supposed authors anywhere online. There is a Kevin Paul Parent at McGill, but he teaches accounting. CataracticPlanets (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the authors and the paper exist (for which I have no evidence) it would still be an unpublished and uncited preprint, too soon to have attracted the secondary-source coverage necessary to make this topic notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax created by forking our article on Holevo's theorem, filing off the serial numbers, and attaching spurious new names. Needless to say, the third listed source does not exist in any form. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't quite fathom the motivation for a hoax of this sort, but I don't need to. XOR'easter (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally labelled this as a hoax after not understanding a sentence in it, and then not finding the last reference. Anyway Holevo's theorem says that the classical information is n bits, so saying it is bounded may be true, but so trivial, that it would not even be mentioned as a lemma. The name should have had capital R but no need to worry if it is getting deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Agree that this appears to be a hoax article based on Holevo's theorem. There even seem to be artifacts in the hoax article that correspond to failures to copy-paste bits of the original. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evidently copy-pasted from Holevo's theorem including "which is specified in the following [1]". Zero sources to verify the theorem. Delete under WP:DEL6. Sam Sailor 12:08, 18 May 2018 (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.