Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Functions Originator

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Functions Originator

[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)

This appears to be a slightly adapted paper on a novel concept (now correctly licensed after a trip to the copyvio corner, as far as I can tell). The issue is that this is pure primary material based on a single source with no further uptake - in other words, original research. I don't understand zip about the topic, but I can vet the given sources, and they consist of a) the original paper, b) a Stackoverflow thread, and c) two papers and one software documentation about related material that do not mention the concept. Charitably WP:TOOSOON, definitely not sufficiently covered to have an article on WP. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but happy for a closer to ignore my !vote if something newer emerges or someone volunteers to transwiki to stand up in WikiBooks or WikiUniversity but its unclear to me if ir would be accepted there. I have not precised checked the nom's analysis of the references but from [this search] on Google Scholar one of the authors of "2019 IEEE Canadian Conference of Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), 2019, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/CCECE.2019.8861880." appears in the 6 related items. Some indicators for COI/SPA/PROMO concerns and has not gone via AfC. Thankyou. 11:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep. This article incorporates text available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. The text and its release have been received by the Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team. The article is significantly extended and edited by different volunteers. Also, all the typo-errors have been corrected, and the article is updated with enough references. Maximal Point (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you have added a further 10 sources on related material that do not mention the subject. Do you understand the nature of the problem - that no one except Al-Roomi & Al-Hawari are talking about the "Universal Functions Originator"? (And no, it was not expanded by anyone but yourself - all other editors did was cutting it down and fixing the peripherals.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We write about ideas after they've caught on, not before. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per XOR, we don't write about stuff that's got no wider relevance than a single paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The idea here is, I think, interesting. It's very peripherally linked to some work I do, though I certainly wouldn't say that I'm an expert in this area. Unfortunately, though, the entire article has the feel of research work in progress, rather than anything fully formed. There aren't the independent references I would expect of something that has reached professional standard and broad acceptibility. If this takes off we can always re-create the article later, but for now it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. RomanSpa (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's also worth noting that as it stands the approach that is being advocated is far less general than it at first appears, and there are some oddities in the presentation given in the article. I'm thinking this looks more like master's level work than doctoral. RomanSpa (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RomanSpa and nom.4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 26 September 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.