Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dual-phase evolution


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 20:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Dual-phase evolution

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Based on the work of a single author (also the creator of this article). —Ruud 14:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There's sources from three different sets of authors, and I believe it passes WP:GNG. Note also that it would have been nice/polite for the AfD nominator to have informed me of this AfD, as I accepted the article at AfC. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The references relevant to the article are those who have "Green, David G." as one of the authors. Those papers have not received a significant number of citations. The independent references by e.g. Paul Erdős and James R. Goodman do not speak about "dual-phase evolution" at all, they are merely used to support tangential statements. Adding such off-topic references is a common trick to make the article seem more notable than it is and pass a superficial check at AfC. —Ruud 10:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The main author is apparently working on this whatever-it-is since 1982 (last reference 9 at the monent), therefore Paul Erdős had no chance to review it in a book published 1960. Dggreen does not hide the WP:COI, but might be unsuited to present the topic in an encyclopedic way. With my long forgotten (but fondly remembered) chordal graphs, petri nets, and FSC-0093: keep, add . – Be..anyone &#x1F4A9;  07:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That someone has been working on this topic for 34 years does not make it notable. We need independent work to refer to it to establish that. I do not see any evidence of such independent descriptions of this work existing. (Aside from the notability issue, the article seems fine, it would not be appropriate to WP:TAGBOMB it.) —Ruud 07:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. My usual standard for academic topics such as this is pretty low (based on WP:GNG): I want to see significant research on the topic performed by multiple independent groups. In this case Google Scholar finds quite a few papers with this topic (or its abbreviation) in their title, but they seem to be all from the same people. So this looks like something that just hasn't gained any traction outside of the research group where it originated. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash; Green (2014) 3 cites, 2 of which are self-cited. Green (2011) 22 cites, 4 of which are self-cited.  Agree with  just not enough traction yet.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Article itself looks okay. Yes a narrow field of personal stakeholders, but it has been published by a range of notable institutional stakeholders with peer review papers it seems, which is not a very low bar to get over.  So while not winning the world cup it does stand on its own two feet.  Aoziwe (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep In my opinion this article satisfy notability guidance criteria. It is true that it coves a specialized subject, which has been extensively studied by the main author. However, there are other researches who were focused on, and the topic of dual-phase evolution is referenced in passing in a number of publications, including few textbooks. --Dcirovic (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you name those researchers, publications and textbooks? —Ruud 07:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * some of the researches who were focused on the topic,
 * this topic is referenced in passing in a number of publications,      including few textbooks.
 * References
 * References

--Dcirovic (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep at best, this seems enough for its own article and can be improved as needed. SwisterTwister   talk  22:43, 9 May 2016 (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.