Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tree-cover ratio of graphs:asymptotes and areas


 * 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Tree-cover ratio of graphs:asymptotes and areas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research. This article has just been published and there are no references to it yet from any other journal. Contested prod. ... disco spinster   talk  19:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the nominator that Wikipedia is not for promotion of newly-published research, even though one could argue that as published research it is different than WP:OR. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete as above. Hopelessly unencyclopedic also. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC).
 * In sectio 2.2 of "what Wikipedia is not" it states "Wikipedia can report your work after it is published"?? The topic is published in a journal cited in the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterpaulaug (talk • contribs) 09:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)  — Winterpaulaug (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Then the sentence says "... after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations ofreliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion." i.e. you need third party citations to show that the content is notable in a wikipedia sense. A single research paper is not enough. If TV programs have been made about it, newspapers have articles on it, then it would be suitable. Martin 4 5 1  11:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It should explicitly be stated that a "single research paper is not enough"- the concept of tree-cover ratio involves four areas of well known and acceptable knowledge: spanning trees, vertex coverings, the secretary problem and differential equations- this should give it Wikipedia validity- but this is my own biased opinion of course. Insisting on such things as newspaper articles and TV programs for such an academic article is unrealistic and very unlikely. Thanks for your opinion and may the wonderful passion for acquiring and presenting new knowledge never be dampened.User talk:winterpaulaug
 * If a paper is cited by thousands of other papers, or becomes accepted knowledge, or even just highly debated, but no newspaper articles etc. have not been written, then it may be suitable. The reason a single research paper is not enough, is that over a million scientific papers are published every year, the majority of which are not notable in a wikipedia sense. Third party references are needed to show which research is notable outside of academia, which have the support of a lot of scientists. One problem is that people like to use wikipedia to publish their pet theories, push agendas, or just publish completely flawed ideas (I doubt that is the case here). Third party references are needed so that readers of wikipedia can see if a subject is sound, or the work of a crank. I emphasis that I am not calling you a crank. See WP:Fringe. It is also not a good idea that the author of the work, also writes an article about that work, as bias can creep in. I wish you well in your research. Martin 4 5 1  17:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Publicity write-up for a non-notable uncited recent paper. Fails WP:GNG. Also note that the paper in question did not appear in Advances in Mathematics, but in a rather dubious and non-indexed Macedonia-based journal with a similar name . -- 101.117.57.200 (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:No original research. the statement that a single paper is not a sufficient source is in that policy, in the section "Using sources": "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." There is more explanation at WP:Third-party sources. JohnCD (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2014 (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.