Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric

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. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric

Not notalbe
Conflict of interest
Self promoting

--Memming (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit too early, perhaps? In response to Memming's editor assistance request, I tagged this article for expert attention and mentioned it on the talk page for Wikiproject Mathematics, but that was only a couple of hours ago.
Still, now that we're at AfD: I agree there's every indication of a WP:COI author. He's apparently named the metric after himself, and I know of no indication that anyone's cited this paper, which is apparently the author's PhD thesis. So I think Memming's nomination is absolutely correct as far as it goes.
For AfD to consider here is the tension between WP:N, which this fails (contrary to what I said earlier, but I've looked a great deal more critically now, as I should at AfD), and WP:PRESERVE, which I think enjoins us not to delete scholarly content. I would therefore be looking for an outcome of trim heavily and merge; this should probably be a small section or footnote of some broader article (and hopefully a mathematician will come along to suggest which).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion on how to make an AfD nomination, you've skipped 2 of the 3 steps. Hairhorn (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ops. I'll fix that. --Memming (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Szymon Łukaszyk I am the first author of this article, which I initially created as probability metric to disclose the concept that was developed in my PhD thesis and enable its further development according to Wikipedia standards (cf. Notability_issue). I feel like changing the article's name to include my surname was a trap set by Memming, who first alleged its WP:NOR (Lukaszyk-Karmowski_metric#Original research?) than switched to WP:Notability but after being unsuccessful in his efforts to prove that this concept is any kind of plagiarism or wrong in its essence behaves - as I see it - overemotionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guswen (talk • contribs) 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I never suggested to change the article name to include your name. I never said it was a plagiarism. --Memming (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My general feeling is that research mathematics concepts can be kept if there are three or more independent groups of mathematicians working on them, a pretty low standard. In this case, Google search finds only the author's paper, with zero citations. MathSciNet finds the paper but declines to review it and also lists no citations. This is not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get side-tracked by accusations as I think everyone is trying only to be helpful. It is difficult to judge from very little background but I think it might be the case that work by "Guswen" is concentrating on is a special case of a "Karmowski metric" idea (where the special case is "independence"), in which case it would be best to have a "Karmowski metric" article, with the present article supplying a useful basis for illustrating a special case. Melcombe (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable subject as per wikipedia guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, move article to editor's user-space and move back to mainspace once this has gathered more independent attention. There is a lot of content here, so I wouldn't want to lose it if it may be useful in the future. I also like the idea of using this as the core of a more general article, as suggested by Melcombe. Tim Vickers (talk)
Delete, based on the above, it doesn't appear to be a particularly notable or widespread concept within mathematics. No objection to a userification so that the article can be preserved in case it does become a more notable concept. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:23, 11 June 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.