Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Mathematics. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Mathematics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Mathematics. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics/archive

Weighted planar stochastic lattice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | 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]

• Graphmatica (via WP:PROD on 18 June 2025)
• Quotientable automorphism (via WP:PROD on 6 June 2025)