Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary lambda calculus

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 January 30.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Binary lambda calculus[edit]

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

Lacks notability. One independent paper has been written about it, but has not been published in a reliable source so that doesn't count. An award has been given for an implementation of it, but the judges' remarks were one line long and therefore I believe this must be considered an incidental reference to the subject matter, so that also doesn't count. greenrd (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --greenrd (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is basically the same article as Binary combinatory logicc. They are both largely written by one John Tromp. The external reference are to home pages by the author and to an article by Gregory Chaitin. The Binary combinatory logic article cites one other, respectable source. These pages are original research by the author. Perhaps they deserve to be published somewhere, but they haven't been. Pierre Lescanne, a quite respectable computer scientist, together with Katarzyna Grygiel, wrote a paper on a combinatorial problem that occurred to him while reading these pages, and published it on the arXiv. However, both of these articles should be removed from WP because: 1. they are original research by the author of the pages, 2. neither the results nor the author seem in any way notable. If we leave these articles in, we give license to anyone who writes a paper, to make that paper a WP article. WP is not supposed to be a place to publish your own research. You'd have one WP page for any paper, published or not, that anyone wrote. It does not become notable if, among the hundreds of math articles published, one other article, and that a not particularly distinguished one, refers to it.--Toploftical (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding this relevant link to the discussion. It contains remarks by other editors who previously discussed the notability of this article. See

Why this article should be deleted

--Toploftical (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Greenrd and Toploftical. —Ruud 17:45, 7 January 2017 (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.