Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Flandern–Yang hypothesis


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Van Flandern–Yang hypothesis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is part of the following group of articles that I have all nomination for deletion (individually): These article all detail research done by Xin-She Yang. All suffer from the following problems:
 * Articles for deletion/Bat algorithm
 * Articles for deletion/Cuckoo search
 * Articles for deletion/Firefly algorithm
 * Articles for deletion/Flower pollination algorithm
 * Articles for deletion/Fowler–Yang equations
 * Articles for deletion/Van Flandern–Yang hypothesis
 * Articles for deletion/Eagle strategy
 * Most citations include Yang as one of the authors (i.e. are primary).
 * Citations numbers of the article look superficially impressive, but include many self-citations and even reek of a citation circle.
 * Articles have been created by Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Metafun, why likely is Yang himself.
 * I could not find any respectable overview books and articles describing this work as considered relevant in the field. —Ruud 14:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Split up the request, since most of the pages appear to have adequate sourcing from secondary publications, with the possible exceptions of Fowler–Yang equations (2 sources, one of which is Yang), and Van Flandern–Yang hypothesis (4 sources, 3 of which are Yang). Circular citations happen in academia, especially in very specialized areas. Nevertheless, they count as secondary sources.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * These are already 6 separate nominations. I'll clarify my nomination to make that more clear. —Ruud 15:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing on this topic found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I found that the 1st and 3rd hit on google scholar were this article from sources other than wikipedia. One is the APS website, which has an article, but I don't have access to. I think a nomination to delete should be withdrawn if the evidence is incorrect. StarHOG (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I find nothing meeting our notability requirements either. Doug Weller  talk 13:39, 24 July 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.