Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dual q-Hahn polynomials (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Nakon 00:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Dual q-Hahn polynomials
AfDs for this article: (There is no 1st nomination)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like an under construction article which was never finished. Was afd'd before but some (now retired?) author removed the PROD and then retired (again?) DVdm (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment AFD is not a forum for determining how complete an article is, and being "under construction" is not a basis for deletion.Neither is the "active" or "retired" status of the article creator. It looks like an acceptable stub. The issue is whether the subject is notable. I am no math expert, but this specific topic has numerous instances of coverage in apparently reliable sources viewable at the "scholar" and book links above, and has been discussed for decades. It is not something nonnotable which some hobbyist just coined, as is too common in articles about math in Wikipedia. We need input from someone who can access the numerous instances of coverage which can only be seen in snippets or which are behind paywall. Edison (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge into Askey scheme. This has been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics there are a number of other very similar articles. These all very similar families which feature in the Askey scheme. They have been largely ignored since creation. I think they could all be merged into Askey scheme, but others on WT:WPM have suggested a more refined system for merging. --Salix alba (talk): 14:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment It was previously Prodded before (by me), not AFD hence why the there is no 1st nomination. --Salix alba (talk): 15:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Afaiac, anything goes. I just wanted to do something about this odd removal by someone who retired the next day. - DVdm (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree about the author retirement but that is no reason for deletion... why do you think There is no deadline is odd? DeVerm (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the essay is odd. Just the combination with the author's retirement(s). No big deal. - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not what I mean. You wrote about the "odd deletion" done by editor but in his edit comment he clearly referenced at There is no deadline, which is a valid point imho. DeVerm (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. But making a valid point and then quicky retiring looked odd to me. - DVdm (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep and stubify, then afterwards all the Hahn-articles could be merged into one like discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics. I do not see a call to merge them into the Askey scheme article in that discussion. DeVerm (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, articles such as this are sufficiently obscure that it can/will take more than five years before they get expanded. I have noticed that activity on maths articles has fallen off very sharply in the last five years, and that many leading editors are no longer with us, and are not being replaced by newcomers; thus progress is inherently slow. I see no particular harm in leaving this as a stub. User:Edison asked about notability: it seems sufficiently notable to me, I stumbled over this ... all the q-series arise in relation to the affine Lie groups; this was particularly fashionable to study about 10-15 years ago, and the popularity has waned considerably since then, but such is the cruel nature of fashion and trendiness in math and physics. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 12:57, 22 June 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.