Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogoyavlenski-Konoplechenko equation

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. Davewild (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bogoyavlenski-Konoplechenko equation[edit]

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

I propose to delete this article according to the recommendations of WP:TNT. User:Gisling has produced numerous such articles on topics mostly related to nonlinear dynamics, which are essentially devoid of useful content, and more troublingly, often have misleading statements. This article is not unique in that the definition of the equation is copied from an academic paper[1], which would ordinarily be fine, except that in this area the specific formula that defines an equation tends to change from one source to another, in ways that are not obvious to people who are not experts in PDE. I don't have the ability to correct all of them, and at best, they could be reduced to stubs. For this one I would write "The Bogoyavlensky-Konoplechenko equation is an equation related to the KdV equation. math-stub" because that's all I can confidently say at the moment. I'd rather let the title remain as a redlink. Sammy1339 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I mentioned this deletion discussion here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems like it's cited a lot in sources, this one and this one, but I think this needs to be discussed at the Math project as suggested by the people at the ANB. I cannot make heads or tails of it and I don't know if your average editor will have the skills to look at all these citations and know what is significant and what is not. If I knew how to solve that I would probably have better things to do than hang out at AfD! 😜 😜 😜 —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is not so much a lack of sources, as the fact that the sources do not agree with what is written in the article. According to your second source the Bogo-Kono equation is something ostensibly very different from what this article is written about - for one, it's not even a differential equation in the strict sense. But that article also says that the authors were discussing that equation for the first time, and named it the Bogo-Kono equation by analogy with previous such equations. So this is the problem: even the definition is suspect. And the rest of the article is computer-generated garbage and the same list of offline references which have been used for numerous similar articles, where they don't actually apply. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Regardless of the possible notability of this topic, the content of the article is a pointless explosion of formulas and plots that adds no value to the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein We have to evaluate the article not on its current state (which I agree is terrible, and this sometimes can be an indicator of its notability), but only whether or not reliable sources exist, somewhere, that support it having an article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to evaluate articles as you please, but "AfD is not cleanup" is only relevant when there's something of value to save in the nominated version of the article. I don't see that in this case. However, I will also note that "Bogoyavlenski-Konoplechenko equation" gets absolutely zero hits in Google scholar. So if it's notable, it doesn't seem to be notable under this name. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tend to agree with David Eppstein. There is nothing in the article that is useful to Wikipedia users. It is just a list of equations with some pretty graphics. Nothing says why the equation is important or when it is used. There is not much online and I see no indication of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see that the excessive formulae and graphics have been eliminated but this makes it even clearer that it’s unencyclopaedic: no indication of its significance, its application, what the various terms are. Just an equation pulled from a paper.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not per TNT. I do not see the evidence of notability. The sources given by Wikimandia (above) use that equation as a test for resolution methods; same for this. It seems to me that this equation is discussed nowhere except as a target for that kind of solving methods.

In my view, this does not amount to "detailed coverage". Of course if that equation was a standard test for an important class of methods it would make it notable on that ground but I do not see it either (and there would be sources, anyways).

However, should it be decided that the article passes the notability threshold, TNT-ing it is the wrong way to go. TNT is used when an article has become so bloated and it would need so many incremental edits to reach a decent state that starting over is less of a headache. The current article is so short it would not be hard to rewrite it "from scratch" without doing a large edit. (Note: the article has probably been edited since the previous comments) Tigraan (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2015 (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.