Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logarithmic convolution

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 keep‎ procedurally. One of a series of problematic noms. Any established editor is welcome to bring this to AfD if they believe there is merit. Star Mississippi 23:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logarithmic convolution

[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)

Article without reliable sources or references since its creation, plus the template was installed 14 years ago without having any improvements. his notoriety is doubtful WP:N.Alon9393 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article was fully sourced, being an import form a suitably licensed work. It's not a template. Appears to meet WP:GNG. What WP:BEFORE was done? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I think that PlanetMath would fall under user-generated content and so would not be sufficient by itself. XOR'easter (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2024 (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.