Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weighted planar stochastic lattice

Weighted planar stochastic lattice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

math term of questionable notability. Referenced only to primary sources by the authors of the term, and google search appears to show refs from a "walled garden" of Hassan and Hassan &Co. --Altenmann >talk 05:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One of the primary sources currently in the article (reference 3) is a conference proceedings paper. In physics, that's a very low tier of peer review, sometimes not substantially reviewed at all. Another is in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, a journal that had a major scandal and whose reputation has not yet recovered. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've found three papers that aren't by Hassan and company, that look reliably published and that discuss WPSLs in some detail [1][2][3]. That might be enough to scrape by. From what I can gather, having an article about this wouldn't be an insult to Wikipedia's reputation (though the current text needs major trimming and rewriting), but not having an article wouldn't be a grave omission, either. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 1 & 3 are from arxiv, i.e., not peer reviewed hence not reliable sources for wikipedia. All three are primary sources, insufficient for notability. Since you appear to have expertise, I would recommend to spend your time for more useful articles on the subject. Many of them require attention. --Altenmann >talk 09:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Those are the arXiv versions of papers that were published in journals. I provided the arXiv links for convenience, so that they could actually be read. See the "journal ref" and "related DOI" fields in the metadata. The journal versions are [4] and [5] respectively. As to whether they're "primary" or "secondary" sources, they're primary for the new claims they make (e.g., the absorbing phase transition of a contact process is in a different universality class on a WPSL and on a regular lattice), but they're secondary sources for the basic idea of a WPSL itself. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - having all the sources basically written by one person is original research that we have never done. I would add that everyone has to know that after 9 years here. By the way, for new editors, we can use your expertise at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/June 2025. Where you find a primary source doesn't matter: it's still a primary source. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Three secondary sources for the basic concept count for nothing? I could be convinced either way on this. My reading of the available literature suggests to me that there's just barely enough to scrape by on a literal reading of the general notability guideline, but I could also see the case that a guideline is just a guideline and we shouldn't be so literal when the sum total amount of text we can justifiably write is pretty small. This topic seems like one that would merit a paragraph or two in a larger article, but I am not sure if an appropriate larger article currently exists. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as rewritten, or merge to an appropriate broader-scale article if one can be identified. I've cut the unencyclopedic fluff, redone the introduction, and cited it to four journal articles by three nonoverlapping sets of authors. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I am not convinced by the quality and reliability of the sourcing. But I note that this is almost the same as a kd-tree under random insertions, for which there is a much older and larger literature. If these physicists made the connection to that literature rather than reinventing the wheel they might have a better case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as original research. Bearian (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• How is this "original research"? It's based on four papers by three groups of authors who were not the originators [6][7][8][9]. It's certainly not a widespread idea, and it might be reinventing a wheel from data-structure theory. But I don't see how it's "original research" in the Wikipedian sense. (You've left a bold "delete" twice in this thread; I'm assuming the second one means that your opinion has remained unchanged in the interim.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]