Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Segal–Shale–Weil distribution


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Segal–Shale–Weil distribution

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Zero references for this phrasein Zentralblatt or Mathscinet. Nothing useful in Google Books or Scholar. Not notable at best, hoax at worst: article appears to be complete nonsense. Boodlepounce (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - have added a couple of citations. Expert opinion likely needed on m-morphism but deletion seems an odd manoeuvre here. metaplectic group also looks fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * References added refer to Segal–Shale–Weil representation which appears to be quite different. The term under discussion does not appear in the literature.  Deletion does not seem odd for a concept that has not been written about.  Boodlepounce (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been caught out by Steve Mann, who writes here as . Your cited sources are about the Segal–Shale–Weil representation, also known as the oscillator representation or the metaplectic representation.  See Talk:Steve Mann for complaints going back to 2004 about the "neologisms created on Wikipedia".  See Articles for deletion/CyborgLog, Articles for deletion/Absement, Articles for deletion/Uberveillance, Articles for deletion/Technomad, and Articles for deletion/Post-cyborgism for just some of these. The Segal–Shale–Weil representation isn't generally called the Segal–Shale–Weil distribution in the literature, and  doesn't seem to occur in the literature either.  Unlike some of the prior neologisms that he's put on Wikipedia, not even Steve Mann himself has used that name outwith Wikipedia.  He's used it in Wikipedia, of course &mdash; when he wrote chirplet transform, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect you may be right but this area is so technical that we really need an expert to give us a hand here. What I can say is that if this unpronounceable mouthful is the same as the representation then we just need a Redirect; if it's not the same and uncited then we need a Delete; if it's an interesting bit of additional math with sources then it's a Keep. And we shouldn't jump till we're sure. I will change my !vote as needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A "distribution" is not the same thing as a "representation", so there is no way that the two articles have the same subject. (It is the same metaplectic group described in both articles, but that also is not the same subject as either of the two articles.)   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - thank you, then it must be nonsense/muddle/hoax (strike as appropriate). Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually there is a Weil distribution (content of a Bourbaki seminar by Weil on Tate's thesis); and it's in the same area of functional analysis applied to theta functions; but it isn't a direct hit. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I get no scholar hits for the term "Segal–Shale–Weil distribution".  The article is so vague that it is unclear whether this is even related to the Segal–Shale–Weil representation, but it feels made-up a la the Bogdanov affair.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. (Just figured someone should vote.) Nice reference to Bogdanov affair. It was an interesting read. -- Taku (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Obviously a WP:MADEUP term. -- 202.124.74.111 (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, I think, but there is a need to investigate further. Per, the author "Epimetheus Christer Hiram" has written on this topic; and this then leads us back to VDM Publishing. Looks like some scamming of technical areas via some of our more obscure technical titles. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2012 (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.