Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pósa theorem


 * 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 keep. Tone 18:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Pósa theorem

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I attempted to redirect but it's since been contested. This is not an individually notable topic and per WP:AVOIDSPLIT should be deleted, redirected and merged into Hamiltonian path. Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is badly written but I think the topic is independently notable, as evidenced by papers with it in the title 10.1007/BFb0060117 10.1016/j.disc.2011.02.023 or in the abstract 10.1016/j.endm.2009.07.057, a MathWorld page on it, book coverage that calls it "almost certainly a major contributory cause of various subsequent developments , still-unsolved conjectures labeled as "Pósa-type" 10.1016/j.jctb.2016.01.007, etc. I think these sources provide enough material to expand the article to significantly more than just the single bullet line that would be appropriate for its mention in the parent article. I suspect that the article title should be "Pósa's theorem" rather than "Pósa theorem" and that more sources would be evident when searching that term than when searching the current title (which leads to many false positives). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and probably rename per David Eppstein. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG it has "Significant coverage" the topic is discussed directly and in detail by numerous academic sources as explained and referenced above, and no original research is needed to extract the content. The fact that it is not the main topic of much of the source material is unimportant because the mentions and discussions are far from trivial. Search variations do uncover more sources than the links at top for the current page name and a move discussion needs to occur for this page. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2019 (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.