Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fractional calculus of sets

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. asilvering (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fractional calculus of sets

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Mathematical topic stemming from a 2021 article published in a semi-predatory journal. References are all very primary, or else mostly irrelevant to the topic at hand (e.g., a general reference for fractional calculus; a book on abelian groups). I'm not seeing either the huge number of citations or the textbook coverage that I'd expect for a notable topic. Written by an editor who appears to be one of the authors of the 2021 paper in an apparent attempt to promote their research (but since it was properly run through AfC, COI concerns are reduced). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fractional calculus can be a legitimate subject but for whatever reason it has been heavily taken up by paper-mill authors publishing low-quality papers in predatory journals and citing each other through citation cartels, a phenomenon described for instance in Science [1] although not specifically with respect to fractional calculus. Many of the references in this article, not just the foundational one, look highly dubious. For that reason I think they should not be taken at face value. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a first quick check, I see three MDPI journals: Fractal and Fractional (where the foundational paper was published), Mathematics, and Symmetry. So, yes, the references do look highly dubious. XOR'easter (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Applied Mathematics and Sciences: An International Journal (MathSJ) is published by "AIRCC", which is on Beall's List. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Mathematical and Computational Applications is also MDPI. Honestly, the only really respectable references are those to background material, like a review by Horn about the Hadamard product. (And that reference is done the wrong way: it's a chapter in a book called Matrix Theory and Applications, not a whole book called The Hadamard Product. This suggests to me that the only good references were actually stuck in without reading them.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to an appropriate list if any. Lacks notability. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any list that would make a good merge target, and if the content is supported only by unreliable sources, merging it anywhere would be against policy. XOR'easter (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it then. 21 Andromedae (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A foundational basis in unreliable publications makes it impossible to sort out any remaining valid content, in a subfield whose focus appears to be piling notation on notation in a way that also makes such efforts difficult. We don't have a clear topic for the article, distinguishing it from fractional calculus in a way that makes it clear to non-specialists what the distinction might be. We don't have reliable sources that are clearly and specifically about this distinct topic, and cannot identify them. Fully half of the references (all of the ones in the final paragraph) appear to be present as WP:REFSPAM and to lend credibility to the subject by WP:Citation overkill rather than to support article content. As such, the article is problematic not just from the point of view of WP:GNG, but also WP:V and WP:TNT. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this subject is notable, the article can be recreated by someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest. As of right now, the only purpose of the article is self-promotion, as it was when the creator spammed citations to their journal article across a wide variety of maths articles. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rather transparently self promotional, and there are not secondary sources establishing notability - many of the cites in the article are either unreliable or aren't actually about the topic of the article, but rather Fractional calculus in general. - MrOllie (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsuitable for the reasons articulated above. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coming from WP:RS/N. Seems too WP:TECHNICAL, and the literature cited seems mostly primary... Needs more time to become established in field as a notable concept. WP:NOTMANUAL indicates we shouldn't be doing such technical overviews of scientific info, and we are not a place for a review of all scientific literature on such a technical topic.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2024 (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.