Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedrakyan's triangle

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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sedrakyan's triangle

[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)

In the words of the article creator, HaykHS "It is a new result (2018), that's why secondary sources are not available at this point of time." Without secondary sources, it does not pass WP:GNG. Note also the similarity of the article creator with the name of the author of the primary reference, and the fact that the same editor has mainly contributed to this and the two other articles Nairi Sedrakyan and Sedrakyan's inequality. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR, specifically WP:PRIMARY. This could be a self-made mathematical construct, as it appears at least one major contributor is close to the subject. It also fails WP:GNG and likely any other notability policy that could apply here. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David, yes you are right. I have contributed only to these 3 articles, I would like to contribute to some other articles also, but even these 3 articles took a lot of time. These were my father's life-long results achieved during more than 20 years starting from 1997. Is it bad that I shared it from my own account? I do not see what is the point stating that the editor (me) is related to the article if I have provided all reliable sources and wrote it from the independent point of view. Could you please delete those two comments from the other two articles? If you want to check the validity of the statements, you have all the sources please go ahead and check them, but it makes no sense to write that as the editor is related to the subject than maybe it is not trustworthy information. The last result (triangle) was obtained 2 months ago. I simply shared it because it is extremely useful new method. It makes no sense to call it a self-made result, because it was published in Springer, which means it was approved by professionals as a scientific work. It also makes no sense to explain why is it important (secondary souces can be added later on, no need to delete the article). Please try to understand the content, I am sure you will see my point. Thank you very much for your time and comments. HaykHS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.254.249 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Wikipedia:Notability you will see the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. It is a higher bar than many would like but is set high to keep the encyclopedia to a manageable size. Even in mathematics there is in the order of 100,000 papers published each year, it would be impossible to have articles on all of these. Hence a more stringent criteria is needed. So we require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Papers by the author don't count as they are not independent. For academics this will mean lots of other people will have cited the work. It is impossible to gauge whether there will be significant coverage in third party sources when a paper has not yet appeared in print. Maybe in a few years time this paper will attract this coverage but it is too soon now. Documenting you fathers achievements is a worthy thing to do, but wikipedia is not the place. I personally have a page on my website listing all my fathers research work. There I can keep it without worrying about other people editing or deleting the page. --Salix alba (talk): 07:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon to gauge notability. --Salix alba (talk): 07:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Needs traction in the field and the literature first. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:40, 11 September 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.