Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relation reduction

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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relation reduction[edit]

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

This article is motivated by a topic in the philosophy literature, namely Pierce's Reduction Thesis. However, the content of the article is original research (WP:NOR), consisting of an attempt to introduce a novel formalism. Searching for key phrases in Google Books and Scholar didn't uncover anything resembling the text here. Melchoir (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Pure WP:OR. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: but shrink to stub. The Google books result turns up several references for relation reduction algorithms, so the subject seems to be notable. Presumably a reference can be found for the definition but the rest of the article is unsourced and unencyclopedic.--RDBury (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for RDBury or anyone else: If the article is to be kept, which reference do you think we should start with? I'm not sure that I see an obvious candidate. Melchoir (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first two hits on Google Books, Witold Pedrycz Computational intelligence: an introduction and Advances in web-age information management: 6th international conference both use the term but you're right in that they don't seem to suitable as references for a definition. I'll change my vote to "Delete" unless a secondary reference can be found.--RDBury (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this linked on relational algebra, but this isn't a topic that one can find in database theory textbooks. It seems a research topic, which may or may not have any sources. In either case, I think it's not notable enough for Wikipedia lacking significant independent coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to assume this is original research unless someone can provide a source that does more than mentioning the term. Given the initial author of the article, I'm doubtful this will happen. —Ruud 11:08, 27 May 2011 (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.