Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abstract Stone duality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 (G7, author request) by Charles Matthews. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstract Stone duality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A problematic entry: original research, COI, article ownership and I'm not convinced it's notable. As far as I can tell, this is a research program involving only one person, who is also the main contributor to the entry (see talk). Main contributor also insists he is the only one competent to contribute to the entry or judge notability, and has cited those reasons for removing the prod tag, even though he insists he would prefer there not be an entry on this subject. Needs some expert attention, although the same editor insists there are none besides himself. Hairhorn (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Abstract Stone Duality is the name of a programme of original research by essentially one person (me)" makes it self-evident that this is original research. And you don't have to be a chicken to be able to appraise an omelette. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindly read the discussion page
for the reasons why this page exists, and communicate with me directly.
The page was not created by me, but if it exists then I assert my right to ensure that its contents are correct.
Paul Taylor (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We generally communicate in the open around here, it's hard to create consensus through private emails. You are welcome to contribute to articles but there is no right of ownership, simply because there is no ownership of articles. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As it says on the relevant policy page at WP:OWN, "Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article." And as it says on every page that allows editing or contribution, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Accounting4Taste:talk 23:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We generally communicate in the open around here, it's hard to create consensus through private emails. You are welcome to contribute to articles but there is no right of ownership, simply because there is no ownership of articles. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I dont think that having only one person working on this topic makes it improper or impossible to have at least a stub article on it, especially since this is an extremely rarified area of research. general google search for the strings "paul taylor" and "abstract stone duality" together number 539, google scholar 40. the contents of the searches, needless to say, are mostly citations in journals or abstracts of articles by professor taylor. I would say it passes notabity, and thus deserves an article. i know that marginally notable people can request their articles be blanked when there is a good reason to do so. Professor Taylor, is there a compelling reason for not having an article here? The contents of course may be corrected by professor taylor, in the same manner that incorrect biographical material can always be removed by the subject, as long as the material is not already adequately sourced. he could not, say, arbitrarily remove sourced critiques, when and if his work gets to that level. professor, could you be comfortable with a very minimal article, which just allows the curious to understand that its an advanced topological idea, and not something else, with a few links to relevant papers and perhaps your site? regarding the OR claim, its not original research HERE if we (including professor Taylor) are reporting on ALREADY published and peer reviewed original research. remember, all science starts as original research. Im personally not worried that professor taylor is going to in any way abuse his authorship of the theory in either direction. I would welcome any sourced additions by professor taylor. and professor, i assume you would prefer not to have an article about yourself instead?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice chunk of TL;DR, except that the google search only turns up 171 entries if you go to the end. And the GScholar searches turn up passing mentions. It may not be OR but if falls well short of the bar for notability, which includes the words "significant coverage". So Delete it. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the present: I have known Paul for many years; I am also familiar with the area of research described here in broad terms, having been involved in the early 1990s. I'm fairly clear that the creation of the article is a consequence of the inclusion of its topic in the Timeline of category theory and related mathematics, which I think was not prompted at all by Paul (based on my past discussions with him). I say we handle this as follows: Wikipedia:Give an article a chance has not been followed, so for the present the article should be kept. It is a possible merge into Stone duality or some other page, but first of all the material should be edited into "house style". I'd like a chance to assess the content properly under Wikipedia:Original research. Under Wikipedia:Ownership of articles there is a limit to what can be guaranteed to Paul about how the article evolves. I'd like a chance to go over with him this ground, and if it seems the best solution I'll propose a deletion under CSD G7 (author's request). Charles Matthews (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep mostly because of the reasons described by Charles Matthews. I am a professional mathematician and have done original research in Abstract Stone Duality with Paul Taylor. This is a recognized and established area of category-theory/topology/computability theory. It is certainly better to have the article there than to have a misleading link to Stone duality (as it used to be). Also, does everybody's vote here count in equal amount? For example (and with all due resepect), Durrenhusted seems to be basing his vote on a Google search, whereas Charels Matthews and myself are professional mathematicians who are acquainted with the topic. Is Wikipedia an idiocracy? Frege (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. But I have had a quick reply from Paul. The entry on the Timeline of category theory and related mathematics is satisfactory to him; he didn't know of it before. I'm deleting the article since having ASD as a separate topic is marginal for us, and discussion with Paul suggests this as the best solution all round. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2009 (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.