Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Mathematics. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Mathematics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Mathematics. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Mathematics

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. ✗plicit 23:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hewitt (mathematician)

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:BIO. The subject's publications in academia.edu reads to me as nonsense. Current sources include Mark's Medium page, a Wapo article that doesn't mention his name, and a press release that also doesn't mention his name. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 20:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 20:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I also suspect Mark Hewitt may not hold a degree from Columbia University as claimed. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 20:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MathGenealogy, MathSciNet, and zbMATH all have no record of a person by this name. Having no entry in MathSciNet casts serious doubt on the claim of having a Columbia mathematics PhD. Google Scholar has a profile of someone with a single publication on nuclear weapons policy [2], lists several publications by a linguist studying optimality theory with respect to the Alutiiq (linguistics, not mathematics, but with a PhD from Brandeis in psychology [3]), a thesis of an Australian mining engineer, and a book on pro wrestling. Which is to say, no trace of a fringe mathematician, as our article makes Hewitt out to be. The Babcock Ranch source [4] does not mention Hewitt. The Frontier Communications press release [5] does not mention Hewitt. That leaves us with no evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG, none of the mainstream sources needed to provide a neutral article on a fringe theorist, and no verifiability of anything. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thoughtful review and the concerns raised regarding verifiability and sourcing. I would like to respectfully clarify and respond to the points noted.

I am indeed Mark S. Hewitt, Ph.D., and I earned my doctorate in mathematics from Columbia University in 1987. As many researchers from that era can appreciate, online academic databases such as MathSciNet or zbMATH did not comprehensively catalog dissertations or publications prior to the widespread digitization of academic records in the late 1990s and 2000s. My graduate work focused on recursive mathematical sequences, which informed much of my subsequent work in telecommunications and systems engineering.

Regarding the Google Scholar references — I would like to clarify that none of the sources cited in that search pertain to me. There appear to be multiple individuals named Mark Hewitt across various fields (linguistics, nuclear policy, psychology, and even professional wrestling commentary). I am not affiliated with those works.

My professional career has been deeply embedded in industry — not traditional academia — which explains the absence of a conventional academic publication footprint. My work has spanned roles at Motorola, Frontier Communications, and several other telecommunications and technology companies throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s. During this time, I contributed to early VoIP infrastructure, digital switching systems, and secure communications frameworks — areas often governed by proprietary development and trade secrecy rather than academic publishing.

I understand Wikipedia’s sourcing policies, and I appreciate the concern for verifiability. I am happy to provide additional credible references, public records, or third-party coverage that may support the biographical details provided in good faith. I am also open to revising the article to reflect a more modest and factually supported description of my contributions, consistent with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view.

My intent with the page is not to overstate claims or introduce unverifiable content, but rather to document the emerging theoretical framework I am developing (Tribernachi Theory) in a transparent and respectful manner, acknowledging that it is undergoing peer review and academic discussion.
I welcome further guidance from experienced editors on how best to align the content with Wikipedia standards or alternative pathways to document this work appropriately within the community. Mark (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarify if you got your PhD from Columbia University or Columbia Pacific University? Are you lying on your autobiography? Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 21:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found https://web.archive.org/web/20031223054928/http://mark-hewitt.com/aboutme.htm, a 2003 web page in which someone named Mark Hewitt (matching particulars from our article including connections to companies named NextBend and Frontier Communications) describes himself as having a business and engineering degree from the University of Alaska. You might think that if he also had a 1987 Columbia University (or even Columbia Pacific U.) mathematics doctorate he would have mentioned it there, though, right? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The linkedin attached to the academia.edu profile shows a PhD from CPU. I think it's starting to become clear what's going on here. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 16:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hewitt has since clarified at Talk:Mark Hewitt (mathematician) that it was Columbia Pacific University. I've corrected the article. Belbury (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re alternative pathways to document this work appropriately within the community maybe the WikiJournal of Science is a better place to start. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources. All sources appear to be self-published. Supposed theories appear read like a hoax.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could find no WP:SIGCOV of the subject in decent sources, and the article as it stands is ridden with conflict of interest issues per WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. I can't comment on the merits of the Tribernachi Theory, not being a mathematician; that said, if it is indeed an emerging theoretical framework that has not been thoroughly tested through peer review and academic discussion, it is WP:TOOSOON. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those above, for lack of sourcing supporting encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 01:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator for lacking notability. Hewitt taking the known Tribonacci sequence, spelling it "Tribernachi" and believing it to have applications in quantum, cryptography and machine learning areas does not sound very significant and it's unclear what "academic forums and online publications" he's claiming to have presented this theory to. --Belbury (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein -- and the subject/author stating here that he received a degree from one university and then later having to backtrack and say it was another is a pretty good sign of intent to deceive regardless of the prestige of either of the two schools. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. Total self-promotional junk. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 11:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Altoumaimi

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

Does not pass any notability criterion. Not reliably sourced D.Lazard (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. D.Lazard (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Tito Omburo (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article about Mohammed Altoumaimi should be kept, as he meets several notability criteria outlined in Wikipedis guideline on notability for academics (WP:PROF).

To begin with, there is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. As early as 2009, Altoumaimi was featured in major Swedish national media such as Dagens Nyheter and SVT, where he was recognized as a young mathematical prodigy. This early recognition indicates that his notability is not recent or fleeting.

In addition, he has academic contributions that demonstrate active engagement in research. He has authored peer-reviewed work in the fields of theoretical physics and applied mathematics, including a 2025 publication available on arXiv (arXiv:2502.12205). This shows sustained academic activity and relevance.

Furthermore, Altoumaimi public and academic presence has been consistent for over a decade, satisfying the criterion of enduring notability, as he has remained relevant both in media and in academic circles.

Based on these points, he clearly meets at least two of the WP:PROF criteria:

1. He has made a significant impact in his academic field.

2. He has received substantial coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources.

While the article could benefit from structural improvements and additional citations such as including sections on his biography, academic career, and list of publication it meets Wikipedias standards for notability and should not be deleted. 217.65.132.36 (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that he has made a significant impact on his scholarly field. He has not received any coverage in reliable scholarly sources. Tito Omburo (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iraq and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until RS about this prodigy are found. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Mohammed Altoumaimi received substantial coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources in 2009 when, as a 16-year-old Iraqi immigrant in Sweden, he developed a mathematical formula related to Bernoulli numbers. This achievement was verified by Uppsala University senior mathematics lecturer Lars-Åke Lindahl and reported in multiple international news outlets including The Local, Al Arabiya, and UPI.com, satisfying Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline.According to Wikipedia's guidelines, "Notability is not temporary." Altoumaimi established notability in 2009 through significant media coverage of a substantial achievement verified by academic experts, not a trivial or fleeting event.Altoumaimi has continued his academic career with his 2025 publication "A Rigid Beam Acting in the Shearing Manner to the Quasi-Crystalline Half-Space," demonstrating ongoing contribution to mathematics and showing his early promise led to a sustained academic career.His story has significant educational and inspirational value, particularly for young people from immigrant backgrounds, enriching Wikipedia's coverage of diverse contributors to mathematics.I propose the article be retained with improvements to its structure and sourcing, with a potential review in one year to incorporate any new developments in his academic career. Mohammed Altoumaimi clearly satisfied Wikipedia's notability requirements through significant coverage in reliable sources. His continued academic activity and the educational value of his story provide strong grounds for retaining this article. 94.191.137.26 (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One fluff article does not satisfy WP:GNG, and professionally he is nowhere near WP:PROF yet. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)
Delete: Definitely not even close to WP:NPROF, and not WP:GNG. His single paper (part of his PhD?) seems to be routine theoretical mechanics, nothing special and not in a high profile journal.Ldm1954 (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM spam

In my view, Mohammed Altoumaimi meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria, even if some of his academic work has not yet been published in widely recognized journals. The fact that his research is currently available through platforms such as arXiv does not diminish its value. It’s important to recognize that not all scholars or researchers have access to the resources or institutional support necessary to publish in high profile outlets—especially if they aim to maintain a low public profile or come from underrepresented academic environments.

Publishing in a lesser-known outlet does not mean the work is without merit, particularly considering Altoumaimi’s academic background and the attention his story has received in credible media sources. A historical parallel can be drawn to the case of Grigori Perelman, one of the most brilliant mathematicians of our time, who initially published his groundbreaking results on the arXiv rather than in traditional journals. His work was still groundbreaking and ultimately celebrated, despite the unconventional publication route.

In a similar way, Altoumaimi appears to maintain a modest profile, which may explain why more information is not yet publicly available. However, based on what we do know, and the significance of his achievements, the article about him should be retained. 130.237.96.130 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add another perspective regarding Altoumaimi. Im honestly surprised by how some individuals are allowed to remain on Wikipedia despite not even coming close to meeting its notability guidelines, while someone like Altoumaimi is questioned. Ive tried to investigate whether there has been any serious or official criticism of his work, and found none,even though his story has been in the public domain for years and has been followed globally. The absence of controversy is telling.

Attempting to solve a major mathematical problem at the age of 16 is in itself a remarkable achievement. While he may not have “cracked the code” in the traditional sense, he approached the problem in a unique and arguably more complex way than the known solution. That alone should be acknowledged.

Its also possible that Altoumaimi prefers not to seek attention or be in the spotlight, unlike many public figures. Perhaps he values privacy over publicity, and that might explain the lack of widespread recognition. Nevertheless, his story is clearly motivational, especially for young people interested in science and mathematics.

In my opinion, the article should absolutely remain on Wikipedia. At most, the biography could be refined to clarify that he approached an already-solved problem from a different, more challenging angle. But removing the article altogether would ignore the significant impact his story has had and continues to have, as a source of inspiration. 2A00:801:70B:54A2:D850:1C18:9ADA:17A1 (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In advocating for the retention of Mohammed Altoumaimi's Wikipedia article, it's essential to consider the nuances of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, particularly as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (people). These guidelines emphasize that a person is presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject.Wikipedia+1Wikipedia+1

Altoumaimi's early recognition in 2009 by reputable Swedish media outlets such as Dagens Nyheter and SVT highlights his prominence as a young mathematical prodigy. This level of coverage suggests that he meets the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources.Wikipedia

Furthermore, his academic contributions, including a 2025 article available via arXiv (arXiv:2502.12205), demonstrate ongoing engagement in theoretical physics and applied mathematics. While arXiv is a preprint repository and not a peer-reviewed journal, it is widely used in the scientific community for disseminating research findings. Notably, esteemed mathematician Grigori Perelman also utilized arXiv to publish his proof of the Poincaré conjecture, underscoring that the platform can be a legitimate avenue for significant academic contributions. It's important to recognize that the absence of publications in major journals does not inherently diminish the value of one's work. Various factors, such as resource limitations or a preference for privacy, might influence an individual's publication choices. Altoumaimi's decision to maintain a low profile does not negate his achievements or the impact of his work. Moreover, the enduring interest in Altoumaimi's accomplishments over more than a decade indicates sustained relevance, which aligns with the criterion of enduring notability. His story serves as an inspiration to young individuals pursuing mathematics and science, highlighting the importance of recognizing diverse pathways to achievement. 94.191.138.200 (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I may cut short these extended apologias. It does not matter whence "obscurity" arises - a lack of substantial coverage from reliable sources makes a topic unsuitable for a WP article. If Einstein had not received wide recognition, we would not have an article about him, genius or not. If some Eurovision clown gets worldwide coverage, we will have an article. Special pleading need not apply. Second, if you can't be arsed to write your own arguments, and then even leave the ChatGPT links in your text, your contributions are not welcome to this discussion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the work is as important as its proponents claim it will receive hundreds of citations. Currently it has none. We typically expect 1000+ citations for notability under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. With a single uncited paper in an obscure journal he is very far from passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2025 (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.

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 keep‎ based on the majority of votes (non-admin closure) Imwin567 (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space

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

Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space has interrelated issues. I'm not able to find other sources than the sole one that the article cites (F. Trèves' book on topological vector spaces). I think inasmuch as it is different from just, multivariable differential calculus, it is not a notable topic—in that sense, it may be seen a content fork, where the page is about an obscure TVS approach to a well-known topic that probably doesn't merit coverage on the article about the latter. It is also written in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK-like style, quite closesly paraphrasing Trèves. For example, the portion starting at Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space#Space of Ck functions corresponds tightly to the portion of Trèves starting at Notation 40.1; see an example of this below:

Article:

Suppose $\Omega _{1}\subseteq \Omega _{2}\subseteq \cdots$ is a sequence of relatively compact open subsets of $\Omega$ whose union is $\Omega$ and that satisfy ${\overline {\Omega _{i}}}\subseteq \Omega _{i+1}$ for all $i.$ Suppose that $\left(V_{\alpha }\right)_{\alpha \in A}$ is a basis of neighborhoods of the origin in $Y.$ Then for any integer $\ell <k+1,$ the sets: ${\mathcal {U}}_{i,\ell ,\alpha }:=\left\{f\in C^{k}(\Omega ;Y):\left(\partial /\partial p\right)^{q}f(p)\in U_{\alpha }{\text{ for all }}p\in \Omega _{i}{\text{ and all }}q\in \mathbb {N} ^{n},|q|\leq \ell \right\}$ form a basis of neighborhoods of the origin for $C^{k}(\Omega ;Y)$ as $i,$ $\ell ,$ and $\alpha \in A$ vary in all possible ways.

Trèves:

Consider a sequence $\Omega _{1}\subset \Omega _{2}\subset \dots \subset \Omega _{j}\subset \dots$ of relatively compact open subsets of $Y$ whose union is equal to $Y$ , an arbitrary integer $l<k+1$ , a basis of neighborhoods of zero in $E$ , [namely] $\{U_{\alpha }\}$ . As $j,l$ and $\alpha$ vary in all possible ways, the subsets of $C^{k}(Y;E)$ , ${\mathcal {U}}_{j,l,\alpha }=\left\{{\underline {f}}:\left(\partial /\partial y\right)^{q}{\underline {f}}(y)\in U_{\alpha }{\text{ for all }}y\in \Omega _{j}{\text{ and all }}q\in \mathbb {N} ^{n},|q|\leq l\right\},$ form a basis of neighborhoods of zero for the $C^{k}$ topology.

ByVarying | talk 02:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do not agree with your assertion about a lack of noteworthiness. Also, the topic is substantially different from multivariate calculus. Topological vector spaces are certainly noteworthy, and since differentiability is a corner stone in analysis, it is clear, that differentiable functions with values in such spaces are also noteworthy. The classical definition of differentiability is based on norms (see, for instance, Jean Dieudonné's textbook "Foundations of Modern Analysis"). This classical approach does not work for functions with values in topological vector spaces. So this article has very little to do with multivariate differential calculus. It is a keep. 51.154.152.231 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I say notable, I'm talking about WP:N. Being tangentially related to notable topics doesn't make something notable; substantial coverage in RS does. ByVarying | talk 00:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some^[1]^[2] Advanced Calculus texts use the approach of maps between finite dimensional vector spaces. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge it seems like a content issue and the deletion is not need to solve such an issue. Perhaps the article should be merged into some other articles? —- Taku (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems ot have coverage in sources, but editors seem to not provide citations inside. this happens a lot in math heavy articles. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cook, James S. (Fall 2013). Lecture Notes for Advanced Calculus (PDF). Liberty University - Department of Mathematics. Retrieved April 2, 2025.
^ LOOMIS, LYNN H.; STERNBERG, SHLOMO (1989). Advanced Calculus (PDF) (Revised ed.). Jones and Bartlett. Retrieved April 2, 2025.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy-based input, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2025 (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.

Mathematics proposed deletions

Null sign (via WP:PROD on 13 April 2025)
~~N-transform (via WP:PROD on 11 April 2025)~~
Space cardioid (via WP:PROD on 10 April 2025)
Coopmans approximation (via WP:PROD on 10 April 2025)
Van Amringe Mathematical Prize (via WP:PROD on 10 April 2025)

Mathematics miscellany for deletion

Mathematics redirects for discussion

[1] Cook, James S. (Fall 2013). Lecture Notes for Advanced Calculus (PDF). Liberty University - Department of Mathematics. Retrieved April 2, 2025.

[2] LOOMIS, LYNN H.; STERNBERG, SHLOMO (1989). Advanced Calculus (PDF) (Revised ed.). Jones and Bartlett. Retrieved April 2, 2025.

[1]

[2]