Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Θ10


 * 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   keep. Protonk (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Θ10

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No secondary sources given to establish notability. Search of Google Books found a single mention as part of an example in "Representations of Hecke Algebras at Roots of Unity" By Meinolf Geck, Nicolas Jacon, no "significant coverage" as required by GNG. The subject is a representation of a group which does not have it's own article. Notability tag was removed by the author with no improvement to the article. RDBury (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Adams and Deshpande references are both secondary (survey articles about this exact topic) and in addition there are several research articles about it. I think it's enough to meet the threshold of being the subject of multiple independent reliable and reliably published works. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable in the WP sense, and properly referenced. As it says on WP:BEFORE, point #10, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD". To the nominator: please use the talk page to raise such concerns, since the article creator can probably meet them. Counterexamples to the Generalized Ramanujan conjecture should not be regarded as cruft-like in any sense, but are typical of technical areas that may require some opening out for the general reader. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My first response was to add the notability tag but it was simply removed by the author with a rude comment. So it was apparent to me that the author was unwilling to address concerns and the article was unlikely to be improved by normal editing. If the subject is encyclopedic as a counterexample then the material should have been added to the other article. Sections of articles are preferred over single paragraph articles which are unlikely to be expanded.--RDBury (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually you are supposed to raise concerns about articles on talk pages. Your going directly to AfD rather than trying to engage in discussion looks like pique; and what is "apparent" to you is not the issue. I really doubt you know enough about this area to make the judgement you are jumping to, there. This is deep, serious mathematics and your reaction should be to try to find out more about what is going on in it. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rule #10 you quoted above says "and/or" add a cleanup tag. My talk page comment would say what's in the tag, no secondary sources given. I think I did my due diligence in trying to find secondary sources myself and there appeared to be none given in the article. So I still fail to see how I didn't follow correct procedure. You seem to be trying to create a rule that only someone who is an expert on a subject can propose an AfD. If that was the case then arcane topics such as this would never be nominated. I assume you're not trying push the idea that every journal article ever published should have a corresponding WP page. In any case, I think this shows I have at least a rudimentary understanding of representation theory, so how much expertise should someone have before you consider them qualified?--RDBury (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Adams source is secondary and was present in the article at the time of your tagging and your AfD. So your repeated assertion that no secondary sources were given is false. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No amount of wikilawyering (or special subjective reasoning) adds up to any amount of common sense in these situations. Raising concerns on a Talk page is the first and basic move in getting newly-created technical articles into better shape. Give an article a chance is there for a very good reason. WT:MATH can help with third opinions. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First, maybe we should all go back and re-read Assume good faith. I regularly check the new articles section in WP:MATH for content errors: notability, referencing, content forks, etc. My purpose is help WP maintain the standards set in WP core policies. When I see an article that lists nothing but journal articles and conference proceedings in references then it's a red flag that it may not meet GNG guidelines; these guidelines require secondary sources and there are good reasons for this. In this case my response was to add a tag to the article since it states "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic," exactly the concern I was trying to raise. This is consistent with WP guidelines. Articles that I have created have had such tags added and my response was to address the concern. In this case though the author didn't do that, or even leave the tag in place so it might be done by someone else. Instead I was accused of "driveby tagging" so I concluded that the author was unwilling to even listen to concerns about the article. In these circumstances I think AfD was the logical next step. Perhaps I could have tried another round of "raise a concern and be rudely dismissed", but the onus for establishing notability falls on the author, not on me. (Which is not to say I don't have to at least try, and I did that without success.) In this discussion I've been treated with condescension ("I really doubt you know enough about this area") and accused of "wikilawyering" and I'm trying not to respond in kind, so maybe we should all re-read Civility as well. In any case, we no longer seem to be discussing the delete/keep issue. To me, the article still about one representation (of many) of one group (of infinite). If its significance is as a counterexample to a well known conjecture then the material would be better placed (and probably seen by more people) in the article about the conjecture than in a separate article that is unlikely to be improved beyond the stub stage. There is no guideline or policy that requires this though so I'm done arguing about it. I'm not trying to win anything here, I'm only trying to make WP better in my own, imperfect way.--RDBury (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability says it is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions", the obvious price to pay for having a GNG. Just so. You are speculating again about the article remaining a stub. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Symplectic group, given (1) the inevitable lack of context when treating θ10 on its own, and (2) the fact that, as the article notes, the notation θ10 is used for (at least) two different things. A quick search finds the notation θ10 also being used in other areas of mathematics, which makes θ10 a poor article title. However, the material is clearly notable. -- 202.124.73.85 (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep While this article is far outside of my area of expertise, it certainly appears to have been discussed in detail by reliable sources so I don't think deletion would be appropriate here. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given that the $$\theta_{10}$$ representation has been studied on its own by multiple researchers in reliable sources, and even has a survey article on just this representation, the topic is clearly notable (to me), and there is ample scope for an independent article.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.