Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pytkeev space


 * 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. Could these additional sources be added to the article? Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Pytkeev space

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

"Pytkeev space" is defined in a single 2000 paper, in terms so specialized we have no articles for them. The term is not in general use and easily confused with the "strong Pytkeev property". Links to weakly Fréchet–Urysohn space, an ad-hoc definition in the same paper.

Simply not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. IpseCustos (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia has never published original research, such as this. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. MathSciNet has three hits for "Pytkeev space", none of which are the Malykhin&Tironi paper used as this article's reference:
 * (definitely relevant: a response to Malykhin&Tironi solving an open problem from their paper)
 * (didn't come with a full-text link so I can't tell if it's the same concept, but the MR review says "An example: if X is a subset of the real line, Cp(X) is a Pytkeev space implies that X is perfectly meagre and has universal measure zero."
 * (again, didn't come with a full-text link so I can't tell if the MR review's mention of Pytkeev spaces is the same concept)
 * There are also additional hits for "Pytkeev spaces", including the Malykhin&Tironi reference. I conclude that, with the Fedeli&Le Donne paper at least, we have multiple research groups using this term non-trivially, enough for a borderline pass of WP:GNG. Although I doubt many readers will find this article useful, it seems mostly harmless. And reporting on research concepts described in academic journal articles, as here, is the opposite of original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Having consulted the full text of the sources that David Eppstein found, I can confirm that they are indeed about the same concept. In my opinion, this suffices for GNG. Felix QW (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per David Eppstein. That the topic is named by the same term as the title of the article assuages fears of introducing a neologism and should have been visible in a BEFORE check. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2022 (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.