Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schwarz function

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The result was withdrawn. Expanded with definition. (non-admin closure) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarz 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)

Does not even mention the definition. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created this article based on the very interesting 1974 Carus Monograph by Davis, as cited. However, before adding more material about the definition and significance of the function, I went searching for context and other sources, and frankly didn't find much, so it seems that other mathematicians didn't flock on board the concept, at least not under that name. Thus I began to have my own doubts about notability, but I didn't propose the article for deletion myself, in hope that some mathematical editor with a more comprehensive knowledge of the field would come along and do something constructive with it. However since the forces of destruction seem to have arrived first, I won't oppose them. Eleuther (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick WP:BEFORE search shows that this is pretty clearly a notable concept – there are multiple books written about the topic, papers referencing them, etc. However, with one sentence merely saying whom it was named for and a ref for that, it's hard to see what use it has as-is. Probably a case of WP:HEY. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added the definition given in Shapiro's book, so it's a reasonable stub now, and there appear to be plenty of opportunities for expansion. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two reliably published book sources entirely devoted to this topic is more than adequate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to XOR'easter for doing the legwork and per my earlier comments. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:44, 28 May 2020 (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.