Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Paul Curtis

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 Speedily deleted as a hoax (G3) by RockMagnetist (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Speedy deleted per G3: blatant hoax. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Paul Curtis

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

Suspected hoax. This is not my last name (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3. Unquestionably a hoax, albeit a fairly widely distributed one via other websites. The story being attributed to Curtis is that he developed a system of using binary digits for use in interpreting the I Ching, but found no other immediate application. True story -- except for the person involved, who is actually Gottfried Leibniz, as our article on binary code clearly relates (with references). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2014 (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.