Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Codenominator function

Codenominator function

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Insufficiently noteworthy. According to Google Scholar, only two articles cite the primary source for this codenominator function. — $Q$ uantling (talk | contribs) 13:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — $Q$ uantling (talk | contribs) 13:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was the only journal that isn't a preprint [1]. The Arxiv articles aren't used to show notability as they are pre-prints. I don't see anything else we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No view: I was pinged because I edited the article 10 times. All edits were technical trivia, not related to the subject matter itself (which I do not claim to understand or especially wish to understand ) — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 14:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I think WP:OR may also apply. cf. WT:WPM/Archive/2024/Dec § Draft:Codenominator Function. The concept seems to have only been used by the primary author A. Muhammed Uludağ and his close collaborators. My speculation is that user:Mathician~enwiki is A. Muhammed Uludağ (note: Turkish Wikipedian tr:user:Mathician created the article tr:Süleyman Uludağ, possibly a family member, in 2007). user:Theroadislong, can you explain why you moved this from draft to main namespace and deleted the listed concerns about sourcing by user:David Eppstein? –jacobolus (t) 16:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this to main space because I thought it stood more than a 50% chance of surviving an WP:AFD reviewers comments are automatically removed when accepting drafts. Theroadislong (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is only one real source here, the Bull. Sci. Math. paper; all the rest is background filler. The only other papers listed on Google Scholar that cite this one are by overlapping sets of authors. So we don't have the depth of coverage in independent sources needed to pass WP:GNG. (FWIW my earlier concern mentioned above was mainly about the unreliability of one of the filler references, so it does not really touch on the notability of the topic.) —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No view: I presume I was pinged because I accepted this at WP:AFC, happy with whatever the community decides. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the person who proposed this deletion not post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Article alerts to notify interested editors about mathematical deletion discussions. We don't need to require them to be linked at the project talk page as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might have been an issue with article alerts, because I saw it in the PROD section of the deletion sorting page, where I think it was added manually by mistake. Sesquilinear (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Hardy et al. If I have ever done an AfD before, I have nonetheless forgotten the steps, so I tried to follow the instructions. Yes, I moved something from one part ("the PROD section"?) to another because I think I did it wrong on the first try. If even after the few corrective edits that I have done, I have failed to put this in the right place or otherwise failed to do the right thing then that is my fault. If there is something that I should repair at this point, instructions on what precisely to do would go a long way. Or do it for me. Or tell me to figure it out myself. I am willing ... and hope to get better at able! Thank you — $Q$ uantling (talk | contribs) 20:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments: not notable and WP:OR. D.Lazard (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no opinion on this, but was tagged that it exists. Nom probably needs to reign in their tagging of interested parties, but I thank them for their thought none-the-less. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable, secondary, independent sources. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As others have mentioned, there only seems to be one legitimate source that can be used to establish notability. Also, the WP:OR concerns certainly do not help this article's case. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 17:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete all sourcing on this topic I could find on Google Scholar seem to point to a single author, so I don't see how this can meet notability if no secondary sourcing can be found on this function. Aside from neutral comments that can all be summarized as "I was pinged about this AfD and have no opinion on this article", I think this is fast approaching having a snowball's chance in hell of being kept if it hasn't reached that already, ~~hence why I emphasize a speedy delete to close this discussion.~~ Gramix13 (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC) It has now occurred to me that "speedy deletion" means something completely different than an "early close" which was what I was really intending with my words when I initially wrote this vote, and I don't really think this article qualifies for a speedy deletion in the slightest. I do sincerely apologize to the contributor and the nominator of this AfD for using the term "Speedy Delete" in this discussion without having double checked its meaning beforehand. I will avoid using the term in AfD until I do verify that one of the criteria under WP:SPEEDY actually is satified. Gramix13 (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have enough experience to know whether this is a typical case for speedy deletion or regular speed, or maybe it is gray area — nor do I know how to proceed in any case. WP:DELPRO has a lot of information and I think I do not have enough context to understand it all. In short, if there is someone who knows what they are doing and are willing to do what I should be doing ... please do, or please otherwise lend a hand. Thank you — $Q$ uantling (talk | contribs) 15:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems harsher than necessary (and my comment above may also be). The contributor was apparently acting in good faith, and describing (their own) research which was published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal. They tried to present the topic in the way expected for Wikipedia articles; the issue is mainly that it is "too soon" for the topic to be notable by Wikipedia standards. –jacobolus (t) 16:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with your assessment that this was too harsh, and part of that was my failure to understand that "speedy delete" has a formal meaning in these discussions when I really meant to suggest an early close, so I apologize for this mistake I made. Hopefully this topic does obtain more notability so we can have a proper article describing it, but now is unfortunately not the time. Gramix13 (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]