Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oriented Point Relation Algebra

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. Noting the COI. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oriented Point Relation Algebra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Inscrutible mathematics sub-stub; a quick glance shows almost no coverage apart from Moratz in the literature. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Danstronger (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete yes, it might be a real thing, at least for one person. But not notable enough for an article. After nine years one might expect a second published source on it. W Nowicki (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are numerous articles using OPRA. A particularly nice application is sailing, see Diedrich Wolter, Frank Dylla, Stefan Wölfl, Jan Oliver Wallgrün, Lutz Frommberger, Bernhard Nebel, Christian Freksa: SailAway: Spatial Cognition in Sea Navigation. Künstliche Intell. 22(1): 28-30 (2008), available here Tillmo (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: No comment on whether other sources exist in principle, but (1) the present article (which is in essentially the same state as when it was created in 2012) has no meaningful content, so it's not like deleting it is an impediment to someone who wants to write an article on this topic; and (2) the article creator Tillmo is one of the authors on the lone reference in the article, so this was an unseemly case of self-promotion that should have been deleted right away in 2012. --JBL (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even with the most optimistic possible reading of the literature search results, I can't find enough to say this merits a stand-alone page, and the existing stub is both difficult to understand and a blatant COI, so it shouldn't be preserved by merging anywhere. XOR'easter (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, couldn't find evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2021 (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.