Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xin-She Yang's functions
- 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) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xin-She Yang's functions[edit]
- Xin-She Yang's functions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is entirely sourced to the publications of Xin-She Yang in the past year. There is no indication that these functions have played an important enough role in mathematics to pass the general notability guideline. Furthermore, as far as I can ascertain, the only one who calls these "Xin-She Yang's functions" is Xin-She Yang himself (which is already a fairly questionable practice in academia). In light of this, it seems to me very likely that this article is an attempt of the author to promote his own non-notable original research, and at the very least there is almost certainly a conflict of interests. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not sure that the author is self-naming these functions but in any case they don't seem to meet notability criteria.--RDBury (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. There are only references from Xin-She Yang. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for above sound reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. RayTalk 16:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2010 (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.