Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paravector


 * 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. Jujutacular (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Paravector

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant coverage, Apparent COI Rgdboer (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 25.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Prof. William E. Baylis is the author of cited sources, and possibly the author of this article as it was started from University of Windsor at computer 137.207.80.65. User: Cabrer7 last edited it in May of 2007. The four-dimension concept of "paravector" fails notability outside Baylis texts. Rgdboer (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Google Scholar search linked above appears to contradict your last sentence. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Strong Keep - This search shows plenty of sources not by Baylis— this topic seems to have very clear notability to me. Margalob (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC) On mathematical subjects Mathematical Reviews gives sharper results than Google, which turns up links like this for Paravector Using MR with "paravector" requested in the title of an reviewed paper turns up only six articles with 2 by Baylis, 1996 and 2004. The review is just an advertisement for the reviewer’s book. Two other reviews only quote from the source papers:,. The sixth article looks more significant, but appears in Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras where Baylis is an editor and editorial standards can be viewed online. The body of publications on paravectors is insufficient to support an article on the topic.Rgdboer (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Highbeam search showed 6 articles, and a plain google search turned up sources not from Baylis (R da Rocha, R Jozef to name a couple). Also, there isn't any definite proof of a COI.  Joel.Miles925  18:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Article creator blanked most of the text of the article, which I have now reverted. While it could be interpreted as a request for deletion by author, it looks more like sour grapes, so I will not move for CSD G7 and instead let this AfD continue on to conclusion. Richarddev (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Richarddev has left this identical comment in multiple irrelevant AfDs. There are no reversions of page-blanking in his recent contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 4 September 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.