Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fesenko group


 * 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. ✗ plicit  10:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Fesenko group

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The term "Fesenko group" seems to appear only in a paper by one of Fesenko's own students. In mathematics, a term is normally named after a person only after several, independent authors have used it. In particular, a search for the term in the two authoritative bibliographical databases for Mathematics, MathSciNet and zbMATH, does not return any result. P-adicNum (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. P-adicNum (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The terminology is used in a few other papers citing Griffin's paper (e. g. Ershov and Barnea et al. in the list on zbmath : https://zbmath.org/?q=rf%3A1160.20305).


 * That said the topic looks much too niche to have a full article about it, especially since the properties it seems to be interesting for (for example being just infinite) do not seem to have their own article on wikipedia. If the AfD was motivated by this kind of consideration I'd likely agree with deletion. jraimbau (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. I completely agree with jraimbau. That's exactly the point of the AfD P-adicNum (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable under this name, and in fact the term is so obscure — a grand total of four distinct hits on Google Scholar, one of which is a false positive — that it's not a plausible search term, and so merging or redirecting isn't really advisable. Contrast this with Nottingham group, for which dozens of sources are easily available. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Way too niche to have an article about it, not enough independent sources. Tercer (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Technically the Griffin paper gives this in-depth independent coverage but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: with only one usage of the term in an RS, we should certainly consider this to be a neologism. Some of the content might find a home elsewhere, but we must not have a redirect. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2021 (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.