Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augmental homology


 * 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. not sourced = not notable = not meeting our inclusion standard = delete Spartaz Humbug! 04:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Augmental homology

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested PROD. The article describes a mathematical theory developed by the article's author over the last 20 years, but this theory does not seem to have appeared in reliable sources, which in this case would be peer-reviewed mathematics publications. Instead, it has appeared in a non-peer-reviewed University of Stockholm technical report (1994) and on a preprint website (http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0412552 2004–2010). The theory also appears to have received no attention in publications by other professional mathematicians. Radagast3 (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, lack of attention in publications by other professional mathematicians indicates a WP:N issue as well. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Radagast3 (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Usually we do not nominate an article for deletion a few weeks after it is created, unless it is incoherent. In this case, Gofor has shown his competence in the field through edits at related pages.  Perhaps he should be given the benefit of the doubt to develop the page further, and show additional citations of his work.  What's the hurry?  In this case, the deletion of the page will most likely result in the loss of a competent topology editor.  The nominating editor does not seem to have a record of contributions to mathematics articles.  Tkuvho (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the first sentence - plenty of articles are nominated for deletion much sooner after creation than this. As to the last sentence, see WP:ADHOM. StAnselm (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Asked to comment as contributor, but completely non-mathematical. Discussion on talk page appears to be indicate the article might be editable in a manner that meets Wikipedia standards.
 * Suggest: alternatively consider for article incubation, at least for as long as the PROD would have stood? --Haruth (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm very unhappy with the way this has been rushed to AfD, the instant the PROD nomination was contested. As far as I'm concerned, discussions with the main author as to how to improve the article in line with content policy and our house style are still under way. In other words we at the Mathematics wikiproject have been trying to engage the author, and the nomination here has been triggered in part by the fact that the nominator seems not to have full support in the wikiproject's discussions. Well, it looks like we have to go through the discussion of the notability of the topic, which is on the margins of what we'd usually include. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is helpful to ask the author to spend time rewriting the article if it is ultimately doomed on policy grounds. This way at least, if the article passes AfD, everyone will know that time spent on the article won't be wasted. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your consideration for the author, and your prescience is admirable - at least if it is based on an exact knowledge of the available sources, and a complete survey of ways in which the material of the article might in some way be merged or incorporated into the encyclopedia. But from the point of view of clarifying what sort of article there might be in there, without a complete literature survey, you seem to have done the wrong thing entirely. If serious discussions on pulling the article into shape, and finding references, fail to bring the article up to the level required, then a PROD is a reasonable option. Forcing the issue is typically wrong. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I interpreted the author's comment "I invented this homology theory in the beginning of the 90:th and, unfortunately, I'm still the only expert on the relative singular augmental homology theory" as indicating a lack of literature on the topic. This was confirmed by a Google Scholar search. I am aware that you had concerns about the article which could be addressed by editing. However, the WP:OR issue is one which it seems to me editing can't fix. If and when the author's arXiv paper gets published in a journal, everything changes of course. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I got the dates mixed up above. The article was created the day before yesterday.  Tkuvho (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the article was created on 14 March 2010, though that isn't really important. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked for expert input at WT:WPM around then, precisely because it was clear to me there were issues. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have had a few semesters worth of algebraic topology, and although that was a long time ago it should really be enough to get a vague idea of what an article like this is about. Unfortunately it's not enough in this case. If this article really describes the solution to an anomaly in algebraic topology, then I guess that the fact it is being ignored by the community has more to do with the author's writing style than with anything a Wikipedia article written by the author himself might rectify. Hans Adler 14:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are no hits on mathscinet for "augmental", strongly suggesting that this is unpublished original research. Moreover, as far as I can tell from the almost incomprehensible description of them, augmental homology groups seem to be nothing more than a completely trivial variation of the usual homology groups. r.e.b. (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 18:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep until a better case is made for deletion. This isn't apparently WP:OR, but it may not be notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of this has been published by reliable sources (which indeed makes it WP:OR).  It has already been alleged that the obscure technical report from the University of Stockholm constitutes a reliable source; however, these kinds of reports are often only minimally peer-reviewed, if at all.  In any even, the technical report in question does not appear to have made any impact at all, since it is indexed by neither MathSciNet nor Google Scholar.  In addition to r.e.b.'s MathSciNet search, the only hits for "augmental homology" on the scholar search are self-published articles by G. Fors, the apparent author of the article in question.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. For editors new to the process, the above falls squarely under WP:N criteria for deletion (even though my post did not explicitly link to the policy).  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is some confusion as to whether this is OR, since the author admitted that this was "original research" in the non-Wikipedia sense. But this admission, combined with the fact that the main article ("On the Foundation of Algebraic Topology") is self-published means this is WP:original research in the Wikipedia sense. Remember, since we do not carry out a peer review, we must only include content that has already been peer-reviewed. Oh, and to say "the deletion of the page will most likely result in the loss of a competent topology editor," is a rather poor argument. StAnselm (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * weak keep. The author has a refereed publication at Fors, Göran: Algebraic topological results on Stanley Reisner rings.  Commutative algebra (Trieste, 1992), 69--88, World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1994.  This seems to be on a related topic.  The author should be given a chance to clarify whether some of the material in augmental homology may have already appeared here.  The term is not used in the mathscinet summary, but it is possible that it appears in the article.  Tkuvho (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That certainly seems to be on a related topic, and the article author has cited it in other articles he has written, but not in this one. On the talk page for this article, the author says "The actual origin of the results is the article G. Fors 'A Homology Theory Based on the Existence of a ( − 1)-simplex', Tech. Report~3, Department of Mathematics, University of Stockholm, Sweden, 1994"; which is the technical report mentioned above. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This appears to be a very obscure topic. Wikipedia isn't the place for the author to make his theory known to the whole world. If his theory has merit, then it will eventually gain citations, secondary sources, and only then will it pass WP:N. Ozob (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The stated reason for the proposed deletion was OR, not notability. The OR grounds can be questioned.  I have looked through Fors' arxiv postings by now.  At some key points, Fors refers to the Trieste text for the proofs.  I have the impression that the main technical arguments may already appear in the published text  Fors, Göran: Algebraic topological results on Stanley Reisner rings.  Commutative algebra (Trieste, 1992), 69--88, World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1994, already mentioned above.  Had he gotten a more welcoming reception here, he may have reworked the article with an emphasis on what's in the Trieste text.  However, your point about notability is well-taken, as I pointed out at WPM last week.  Tkuvho (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This seems to be hairsplitting.  An utter lack of published references that address the subject of the article make it non-notable.  The fact that the sole proponent of "augmental homology" in the world has also written the article about it makes it original research.  The two things are not mutually exclusive.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2010 (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.