Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations


 * 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 (default keep). See explanation on talk page. JERRY talk contribs 00:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Myrzakulov equations

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability concerns. Original research. --Michel_312talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.88.60 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment This listing was previously tacked onto another AfD; I fixed the listing. Also, the username in question is not registered, as the edit was made by the IP 85.140.88.60. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete The article is messy and contains a ton of headings, however not much text to go along with it. Google only brings up 1,180 hits for this term. ― LADY GALAXY 00:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. What WP:CSD criterion does it fail?  A1?  But the context is established in the opening line.  Being unfinished isn't (or shouldn't be) grounds for deletion. Tevildo (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably #1 and/or #11. ― LADY GALAXY 01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Invalid speedy delete request A badly written article is not, and never will be grounds for any type of deletion. sofixit - Fosnez (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What about #11? ― LADY GALAXY 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Published in legitimate peer-reviewed journals, so not OR.  I'm not a physicist, so can't really comment on notability, but I don't see any particular reason to delete this one article from among our many equation-heavy articles on theoretical physics and mathematics. Tevildo (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep with improvements per above. Headers need to be made more consistent and someone with expertise on this matter should perhaps clarify the topic along with some of the equations.--Naruttebayo (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep with improvements. Original research. I'm a theoretical physicist and mathematician and works in this field of research. As the expert I think thast this article is a very good one. So I don't see also any particular reason to delete this one article from among our many equation-heavy articles on theoretical and  mathematical physics and mathematics.  --Ngn, 21 January 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.75.101 (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You've forgotten to add, that your're the author of this research :) Look here: --85.140.89.48 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I'm not the author of this research and not the author of these equations. You've "forgotten" that the author of this research and the author of these equations is Myrzakulov. I see that you are a russian user and very want to delete this article following not scientific point of view. --Ngn, 21 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.75.101 (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But you're the close friend of the author of this research, don't you? And maybe you're even the co-author of most of his works, am I right? And yes, I'm a russian user, and I want to delete this article following the reason, that it's an unnotable OR. "Myrzakulov equations" are not exist. --85.140.89.48 (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop discussing the editors and start discussing the article. You can start by explaining why your assertion that these equations don't exist is in stark contradiction to all of the papers and articles cited in the References and Further reading sections of the article. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, find someone, who understand Russian and ask him to read this topic . There are all reasons with links in this topic. I can say in general,
 * editor of this article - is the author of this theory or relative (maybe co-author)
 * there are no records of these equations in indepentent works, google doesn't know anything about them.
 * articles that editor mentiones as proofes of notability of this theory are made by his co-authors
 * You can't find any mention about this equations in reference books.
 * At last, editor is cheating - voting for this article under different nicknames from same IP (as anonimous) (in Russian Wiki).
 * Please, study it in depth. Maybe with help from expert in phisics (magnetism). It's a 100% self-PR. Sorry for my poor English. --85.140.89.48 (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * None of which addresses the fact that the things cited are things published in Physics Letters, the Journal of Mathematical Physics, and the Journal of Physics A. Do you have any explanation for your denying the existence of these sources, which appear to be experts in physics (including Ratbay Myrzakulov, Ph.D., of the Institute of Physics and Technology, MES, Kazakhstan) writing in their fields of expertise and publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals of physics? Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't assert, that there is no such sources or such articles. They exist, of course. But these sources is not neutral. I deny the term "Myrzakulov equations", becouse it is not in use by noone exсept Myrzakulov and several his co-autors. This term is unrecognized, and it's a great honour to name equation after his author, and this honour Myrzakulov declair for himself by himself. Maybe this equations are correct, but his value for science is not admit. You may look: or . You see? Nobody except Lakshmanan and Nugmanova (his coautors: see References and Further reading) use this term. In Russian Wiki we proved that at least some of "Zhen-Huan Zhang, Ming Deng, Wei-Zhong Zhao, and Ke Wu" are also concerned to him. It's a OR, that using 4-5 scientists in the world, and all of them was his coauthors. Compare:  (from which these equation was received). Add to this that fact, that editor is Myrzakulov himself or Nurmanova (look in History) and you'll find a pure General criteria #11. --85.140.89.48 (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This user (85.140.89.48) is  absolutely not correct.  Here  I  present  my  reply  to some points from his message:
 * His assertion-1:   editor of this article - is the author of this theory or relative (maybe co-author)
 * My reply: I’m not author of this theory and of these equations. I'm a former research student of Myrzakulov.
 * His assertion-2:   there are no records of these equations in indepentent works, google doesn't know anything about them.
 * My reply: There are some records of these equations in independent  publications in English (written by the different   authors and from different countries), which I can send to any users who want.  Just give me your e-mail. Some of these independent  publications in English (written by different   authors which are experts in this researech field)  are published in legitimate peer-reviewed journals (please see Further reading section of the article).
 * His assertion-3:  articles that editor mentiones as proofes of notability of this theory are made by his co-authors
 * My reply: Only one author namely Lakshmanan is the coauthor of Myrzakulov.  All other authors of these independent  publications are not coauthors of Myrzakulov.
 * His assertion +1(from his message of 11:36, 21 January 2008):  "Myrzakulov equations" are not exist.
 * My reply: Really speaking I don't know how reply. May be I ask him please prove for us in detail that  "Myrzakulov equations" are not exist. Just I would like to note that in Ru.Wiki arise same problems from this user. May be it is related with the fact that I and/or Myrzakulov not from Russia? As I and/or Myrzakulov are citizens of Kazakhstan may be I must put this article in Kazakh Wiki? May be here some correct reasons? Please explain for us if you have any objective arguments to delete this my article. OK? --Ngn, 21 January 2008
 * Forward to pure lie, Ms. Nugmanova, correct? Let's imagine some national motives? :) The last chance? It's a slander, and in tradition of Wikipedia to proove such declaration. --85.140.89.48 (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I also think that in tradition of Wikipedia at least En.Wiki to prove any assertions. So I would like ask you dear user 85.140.89.48 (which is I think Dmitry Rozhkov, a russian user from Ru.Wiki):  "Please prove that  "Myrzakulov equations" are not exist?".
 * Please also one more see References and Further reading sections of the article. --Ngn, 21 January 2008


 * Delete. No notability (WP:PROF) and self-advertisement. There are only two papers, written by one Chinese group, which mention the Myrzakulov equations. Frankly speaking, it is just a pretty special case of Landau-Lifshitz equations. Note that there is no article about these famous and very important equations in the Wikipedia. Author prefered to create an article about their own particular equations instead writting about more significant and general ones. --RedAndr (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Invalid delete request. Keep with improvements. Because here more than 14 publications in english in which mentioned "Myrzakulov equations" or their short nane for example "M-I equation", "M-VIII equation", "M-IX equation" or their synonyms "Myrzakulov system", " Myrzakulov magnetic models". Please see References and Examples 1-23 in Further reading sections of the article.  --Ngn,  01:45, 22 January 2008
 * Two questions to user RedAndr:
 * Question-1: please prove in detail mathematically and/or physically that "Myrzakulov equations" are "just a pretty special case of Landau-Lifshitz equations"?


 * Question-2: please prove in detail mathematically and/or physically that for example "the Myrzakulov-I  equations" (shortly M-I equation) are "just a pretty special case of Landau-Lifshitz equations"?.  --Ngn,  02:07, 22 January 2008

Anyway I do not need to prove it, author did it himself, see for example: "Here, it should be mentioned that the M-XX equation [Myrzakulov XX] is not the only integrable generalization of the LLE [Landau-Lifshitz equation] in 2+1 dimensions. There exist several another integrable generalizations, e.g the following one: <...> This equation, which is known as the Myrzakulov I (M-I) equation, is again completely integrable." You can say "generalization" sounds better than "specialization", however here it does not matter, so-called Myrzakulov equations are just some kind of the Landau-Lifshitz equations, whatever general or special. And again, I must stress that there are only a few publications refering to Myrzakulov equations, which is too little to be so significant and notable to create an article about it in the Wikipedia. BTW, could you please list all of them, of course excluding preprints and works with co-authors? RedAndr (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think I have so much time to do mathematical exercises like to derive M-I equation from LLE just to prove you something?
 * Dear Andrei Borisovich Ryzhkov (your name I took from RuWiki) or equivalently RedAndr. I already know that you are a chemist  that is you are not expert in this research field, but you make some scientific assertions in this scientific area. It is not seriously from your side. As you are not expert in this difficult area nonlinear theoretical and mathematical physics  it is not good from your side that your request "delete" this article (see, your message from 19:31, 21 January 2008). As the expert in this area I inform you that in the classical theory of magnetism there are several famous nonlinear equations:  classical Landau-Lifshitz equation, Heisenberg ferromagnet equation and so on.  But after discovery theory of solitons (that is after 1967)  there were constructed some new nonlinear equations of magnets like: Ishimori equation, Mikhailov-Yaremchuk equation, Myrzakulov equations and so on some of which are integrable from soliton point of view and admit different class of soliton-like solutions.   Ishimori equation, Mikhailov-Yaremchuk equation, Myrzakulov equations not follow (mathematically or physically) from Landau-Lifshitz equation or  Heisenberg ferromagnet equation.   --Ngn,  03:57, 22 January 2008
 * Thanks for the explanation. Yes, you're right, I'm not a theoretician and for me ME looks pretty like LLE. The only I just read from author that Myrzakulov equations are generalization of the Landau-Lifshitz equations. Therefore, I'd prefer to hear an opinion of independent expert in this field. I wrote to friend of mine, who is quite experienced in such kind of equations, and asked for his opinion. --RedAndr (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also many thanks to you dear Andrei. We can continue our discussion today evening. Just I would like to note that
 * 1. all these new nonlinear equations (Ishimori equation, Mikhailov-Yremchuk equation, (2+1)-dimensional Myrzakulov equations) which were constructed after 1967, are some new, not trivial with rich nature,  multidimensional generalizations  of the  (1+1)-dimensional isotropic LLE.
 * 2. some of these new nonlinear equations (Ishimori equation, Mikhailov-Yremchuk equation, Myrzakulov equations) are integrable. At the same time  LLE in general case is not integrable as and Heisenberg ferromagnet equation. --Ngn,  05:16, 22 January 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.75.101 (talk)


 * My friend answered he hasn't heard about ME from other scientists neither in papers nor at meetings, only from author's papers. He's an expert in solitons, professor of mathematics, wrote a few papers about Ishimori equations. Therefore, I belive him, these equations aren't so well-known in scientific world, its notability isn't enough yet to be honoured with an article in Wikipedia. Sorry, I would recommend you to wait a little bit and create articles about a really important equations like LLE or Ishimoi in this time. I think your supervisor would agree with me. --RedAndr (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To prove notability or not notability (=unnotability) of "Myrzakulov equations" that is the article, we must work with the real facts but not with opinions of our friends. I think that here more important the articles of independent authors (where were mentioned "Myrzakulov equations") than opinions of your and/or my friends. Some of these articles in which mentioned "Myrzakulov equations" I presented in   Further reading section of the article (see Examples 1-23).  --Ngn,  22:47, 24 January 2008
 * Delete pending confirmation by a subject expert. According to Web of Science, Myrzakulov has published 14 papers. The most cited of them, no. 3. in this article has been cited 17 times only, by a fairly limited circle of authors: his group, and the CZ Qu group. none of them have been cited by any papers published in any of the parts of Physical Review, the most prestigious group of physics journals. None of them has been referred to by a review article. If the Qu group is related, as asserted here, then certainly nobody outside the research groups themselves has noticed. Even if it isn't, that is very limited interest.  I conclude that this is not a discovery that has evoked significant interest among physicists, even in the specialty. DGG (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Invalid delete request. Keep with improvements. There are several independent publications  in which were mentioned  "Myrzakulov equations" or their equivalent short names for example "M-I equation", "M-VIII equation", "M-IX equation" or their synonyms "Myrzakulov system", "Myrzakulov magnetic models". [Please see References and Examples 1-23 in Further reading sections of the article]. The authors  of these independent publications from Spain, Canada, USA, Russia, Poland, China, India, Germany, Greece, France and so on. These authors are a  theoretical physicists and/or mathematicians. Also they are  a well-known experts in this research area (nonlinear physics and mathematics).  Some of these their publications (from Examples 1-23) were published in legitimate peer-reviewed journals (also as  the original Myrzakulov's results in which were presented his equations). So these their publications (Examples 1-23) can be considered as the Proof notability of Myrzakulov equations that is the article. Also I would like to note that I don't assert that  these equations are a discovery that have "evoked significant interest among physicists". Just I assert that these equations are a new scientific results which have and will have a good applications in nonlinear physics and mathematics.  And in this sense can be publish in En-Wiki. (What in Wiki must publish only "a discovery that has evoked significant interest among physicists, even in the specialty"?). So I conclude (after User:Tevildo) that I don't see any particular reasons "to delete this one article from among our many equation-heavy articles on theoretical physics and mathematics".  At last as the author of the article I would like to ask anybody who has a good english to improve the English of the article. I will try to complete the article during  a few days. One more sorry for my poor English. --Ngn,   26 January 2008


 * 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.


 * Delete. I am working in this and related areas for more than 20 years, and published about 30 papers on closely related subjects. However, I have never heard or read about ME before. It's 100% clear that assigning the name of Myrzakulov to any of these equations contradicts any normal practice, and these equations are called this way only by Myrzakulov himself and maybe his students. Probably, there was a classification attempt by Myrzakylov, which, however, did not become well-known. This attempt might be mentioned in the text of some other article, but definitely does not deserve a separate article. The aspect of self-promotion is obvious, but is not the main reason for this opinion. That should be a typical situation for a source like Wiki, and an efficient mechanizm should be developed to prevent articles of this kind (de facto spam) to misrepresent the subject.