Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popescu's theorem

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. Michig (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Popescu's theorem

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

DeProded article. Prod reason was Abstract WP:DICTDEF that requires a degree in mathematics to be able to make heads or tails of. Dependant on a singular source that spends all of a few sentences in a multiple page research paper. Deproder made no effort to address the concerns of the prod. Fundamentally this would be best served as a section of Artin approximation theorem (as the text of this page claims critical dependance on the text) until such time that this page could be spun off into a proper article. I am bringing this to AFD under the auspices of "Articles for discussion" and not just looking for Deletion. I think a merge/redirect would be best, however I don't have the expertiese to correctly merge/redirect and I know that if this were to go the regular route of Merge requests, in 6 months 10k bytes of discussion about the suitability will have occured but no forward progress will have been made. Calling the question here forces a timetable for the merge/redirect (if any true merging needs to be occur). I thank the author of this article as they used it as a preview of a "What about X" argument for a draft of similar quality/content that is at MFD. Hasteur (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Deproder made no effort to address the concerns of the prod"? False [1][2]. Please do not jump the gun. Moreover, your characterization of the original source is incorrect: the theorem which is the subject of this article occupies a central part of that paper's logical flow, and indeed, that paper calls it the "central technical ingredient we need" and a "remarkable result". XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, especially with XOR's additions, but probably only if there's a source that refers to this specifically as "Popescu's Theorem", and not something slightly more oblique. While it's just a stub, it seems notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon Vorbis (talk • contribs)
Keep. Reference 2 of the article is a reliable source for the name of the theorem and for its notability. As the Journal of the American Mathematical Society is one of the most important and the most selective journals of mathematics, this reference is sufficient for establishing the notability of the subject, and thus for keeping this stub. D.Lazard (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we removed everything from the encyclopedia that some non-expert editor fails to understand we wouldn't be left with much of interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree the article is a bit short as it is, but that’s why it is a stub and a stub is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable way to start the article (i.e., not every new article needs to be split off from the existing article.) Beside, the article itself is already informative; it gives the statement and explains the application (so it makes sense it exists as a standalone article.) —- Taku (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "requires a degree in mathematics to be able to make heads or tails of" is not grounds for deletion. That is true of many topics in mathematics. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, there's not only one source. Secondly, sure, it's a bit over most people's heads, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted, it means more people need to work on it. Thirdly, all the reasons everyone else has said. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly notable, the requirement of specialist knowledge is not a valid policy-based grounds for deletion. Chetsford (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep might be hard to read, but its quite notable. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:06, 26 February 2018 (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.