Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotype space: Difference between revisions
m chronological / fix bulleting |
TakuyaMurata (talk | contribs) →Stereotype space: r to Epiphyllumlover |
||
Line 178: | Line 178: | ||
*'''Delete''' The topic seems to lack notability in independent sources such as the ''[[Encyclopedia of Mathematics]]''. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 10:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' The topic seems to lack notability in independent sources such as the ''[[Encyclopedia of Mathematics]]''. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 10:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
::Andrew, Eozhik noted that the term "stereotype" is used by Russians more. I am hoping he will share some of these foreign journals with us and translate it for us. It is possible that differences in terminology between the ''Encyclopedia of Mathematics'' and Eozhik could be due to language.--[[User:Epiphyllumlover|Epiphyllumlover]] ([[User talk:Epiphyllumlover|talk]]) 16:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
::Andrew, Eozhik noted that the term "stereotype" is used by Russians more. I am hoping he will share some of these foreign journals with us and translate it for us. It is possible that differences in terminology between the ''Encyclopedia of Mathematics'' and Eozhik could be due to language.--[[User:Epiphyllumlover|Epiphyllumlover]] ([[User talk:Epiphyllumlover|talk]]) 16:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::{{ping|Epiphyllumlover}} Could be. But it is true that we cannot find a general reference work that gives the definition of a stereotype space. Of course, Google can miss some references, especially off-lines but so far we are not presented ''evidence'' that the notion has gained a general currency in the mathematics community. —- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] ([[User talk:TakuyaMurata|talk]]) 19:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<small>{{u|Coolabahapple}} what does this mean: |
<small>{{u|Coolabahapple}} what does this mean: |
||
:"Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics|list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Coolabahapple|Coolabahapple]] ([[User talk:Coolabahapple|talk]]) 22:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)" |
:"Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics|list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Coolabahapple|Coolabahapple]] ([[User talk:Coolabahapple|talk]]) 22:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)" |
Revision as of 19:26, 15 April 2020
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Stereotype space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Stereotype algebra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Stereotype group algebra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I cannot find enough literature to establish the notability of this notion. Googling with ""stereotype space" -Akbarov" yields essentially no work on this notion. There is [1] which has an entry on "stereotype space" but the source of this book seems to be the Wikipedia article topological vector space. *Mathematically*, the notion looks interesting and so it should be ok to have some discussion of this notion elsewhere in Wikipedia if the sources can be acquired, perhaps without the term "stereotype space". Another option is to move the article to nlab where the notability requirement is less stringent. -- Taku (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Technical discussion between the nominator and two opponents to deletion
|
---|
TakuyaMurata, from what you write I deduce that you don't read the sources. I foresee that the example of my co-author, Evgenii Shavgulidze, who studies the properties of the stereotype spaces together with me
— will not persuade you. On the other hand, as we understood, Oleg Aristov, who developed my results on holomorphic duality by studying the stereotype algebra of holomorphic functions of exponential type
— is not interesting for you, because google doesn't suggest you this reading. What about Yulia Kuznetsova, who proved important continuous version of Pontryagin duality for Moore groups
— will this example be suitable? (The term "stereotype space" is contained in the list of keywords of her article.) Or maybe people from Spain and from USA, who study this class of spaces (with another name, but with mentionings of the term "stereotype")
— ? Eozhik (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Until now, I have not seen anyone here except the initiator of this discussion. And I want to say a few words to those who have not yet formed their opinions. In what I saw here, the main thing for me is this statement by TakuyaMurata:
I have not yet found confirmation of this thesis. The links that TakuyaMurata gave to me don't contain it. I will listen with interest to the (promised) opinions of people about this, but no matter what I hear, I want to notice that what is happening is not called honesty: 1. If this important rule is really accepted in Wikipedia, it should be clearly spelled out in the local laws so that situations are not provoked when a person, not knowing about anything like this, spends time writing an article, editing it, searching for sources and the rest, and suddenly discovers that all his work has been thrown into the bin. This is a very important rule, fundamental to such resources, and if it really works here, then the situation when somebody refers to it, despite the fact that it is not written anywhere, is called a dishonesty. 2. On the contrary, if this rule is not accepted on Wikipedia (which is logical to think when it is not visible anywhere), then a reference to it looks like a cheating. Ladies and gentlemen, you should deal with your laws, because this situation is a disorder. Eozhik (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC) |
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep-the concept is cited in this paper:[2]. I think the concern was that the author of the papers was a crackpot or crank. If this concern was true, you wouldn't see a paper of his being cited by others in reputable literature.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Technical discussion continued
|
---|
And another problem is that all the way you change the requirements and/or come back to old ones. Initially you claimed that there must be papers with the title that includes the term “stereotype space” When I gave these references, you changed the requirements: When I pointed out that these references are already given, you changed your claims like this: When I wrote that this is done in the listed papers, you wrote that the research must be "independent of my works": When I wrote that it is, you wrote that these works must be focused on a "notable problem in mathematics": When I wrote that they study exactly the problem that you declare notable, you forgot everything and today you write that there must be papers with the explicit term “stereotype spaces“ So this brought us back to the beginning. When I suggested to bet, you changed your claims like this: Since no one of these requirements is mentioned in the rules of Wikipedia, I would say, there is a big problem here. Eozhik (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Would anybody help me to name this problem? Eozhik (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@Epiphyllumlover: no, there are no special standards for mathematics. Everything is the same everywhere. As I wrote here, in the Soviet Mathematical Encyclopedia of 1977-1985 there are many articles without references to textbooks. It was translated later in Springer and is available now under the name “Encyclopedia of Mathematics”. The (random) examples are the following:
Fourier indices of an almost-periodic function All these requirements about textbooks, terms in titles, in annotations, etc. are exclusively figments of the imagination of our interlocutor. They neither follow from the local rules of Wikipedia, nor from the encyclopedic traditions. Eozhik (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
References
|
- Delete per nom, and also because "mathematicians did not form a general opinion as to which term is more convenient, some do not use any term at all, and in addition, this class has been opened and reopened many times". This quote by the main opponent to deletion shows clearly that the term "stereotype space" is not notable by itself. The notability of the associated concept (topological space that is isomorphic to its bidual) is less clear. The defining property is evidently interesting for everybody who works on topological spaces. So, Topological vector space could have section on this subject, and all names that have been given to this property could be redirected there. For deserving having its own article, such a concept should either having been studied by many people (this is not the case here), or it should have been useful outside the strict study of the concept. No evidence has been given that this is the case here. Therefore I support deletion. D.Lazard (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @D.Lazard: two questions:
How many people had to study this class of spaces so that in your opinion it became notable?For deserving having its own article, such a concept should either having been studied by many people (this is not the case here)
There is a section in the article devoted to applications. Why don't you count it? Eozhik (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)or it should have been useful outside the strict study of the concept. No evidence has been given that this is the case here.
- D.Lazard, Could you work at adding a section to Topological vector space, even now? In particular, the stereotype space article has more equations than the topological vector space article, and appears to be more developed. Can you bring topological vector space to a similar, or even better level?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- For me, being "useful outside the strict study of the concept" means the use by others than the inventor of the concept, or the solution of a problem that has been set before the invention of the concept. In the section on applications, I see only generalizations and reference to works by the inventor of the concept and his frends, not the solution of pre-existing problems. D.Lazard (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @D.Lazard: constructing duality theories for non-commutative groups is a pre-existing problem. And this problem is far from a final solution. That is why the "inventor and his friends" find support from colleagues abroad (and publish their results in reliable journals). Eozhik (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @D.Lazard: two questions:
- Comment Wikipedia policy WP:PRIMARY say
Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them
. As this article is based only on primary sources, this is sufficient for deleting it, without examining its notability. D.Lazard (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- There are secondary sources in the article as well. Eozhik (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Per the arguments made by Taku and D.Lazard, this is not a term widely-used by independent secondary sources to the point that WP:GNG is not met and WP:NEOLOGISM can apply.Once could argue for a merge to topological vector space, the greater class of objects for which there is substantial secondary sources and standard terminology, but very little content in this article should be merged there on the basis of WP:DUE. — MarkH21talk 01:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- MarkH21 this sounds as if there was a controversy between people who prefer to use the term "stereotype" and those who use other terms. There is no such a controversy: people use differenct terms, and this is normal for mathematics. For example, some people use the term linear mapping while others linear operator, and there are no misunderstandings between them. Similarly people use different notations. Eozhik (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: I'm not reading walls of text. Please give concise, policy-based reasons to delete or keep. The images added here look like copyvios; I've reported them at Commons.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand what happens and what to do with these pictures. Eozhik (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Sandstein that, except for really involved people, nobody want to read these walls of texts. Therefore, I have collapsed the long technical discussion that follows the nomination and does not contain clear policy-based arguments. Remains uncollapsed the nomination, the comments and !votes that are opened by a bolface header, and their answers.
- In summary, so far, three editors support deletion, TakuyaMurata (the nominator), MarkH21 and D.Lazard (myself). Two editors are for keeping the article, Epiphyllumlover and Eozhik, the latter having a blatant WP:COI, being the author of the WP article and the author of its main references. D.Lazard (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- D.Lazard, Sandstein explained his motives to me differently, not like you:
For me the rules of this game remain unclear, what I find very strange. In particular, you did not comment this:except for really involved people, nobody want to read these walls of texts
Eozhik (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)How many people had to study this class of spaces so that in your opinion it became notable?
- Sandstein's comment is about the upload of copyrighted images. "Walls of text" is about the whole discussion that I have collapsed. By the way, this page is not for personal discussions between editors. So, I do not answer here to any personal question. D.Lazard (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- D.Lazard, Sandstein explained his motives to me differently, not like you:
- D.Lazard, this is not a personal question, this concerns the rules of Wikipedia. If you write that your vote is based on this opinion
— while there is no rule that establishes the standards, it is natural that interlocutor asks you where you find these standards. Eozhik (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)For deserving having its own article, such a concept should either having been studied by many people (this is not the case here)
- D.Lazard, this is not a personal question, this concerns the rules of Wikipedia. If you write that your vote is based on this opinion
- Delete The topic seems to lack notability in independent sources such as the Encyclopedia of Mathematics. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Andrew, Eozhik noted that the term "stereotype" is used by Russians more. I am hoping he will share some of these foreign journals with us and translate it for us. It is possible that differences in terminology between the Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Eozhik could be due to language.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Epiphyllumlover: Could be. But it is true that we cannot find a general reference work that gives the definition of a stereotype space. Of course, Google can miss some references, especially off-lines but so far we are not presented evidence that the notion has gained a general currency in the mathematics community. —- Taku (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Andrew, Eozhik noted that the term "stereotype" is used by Russians more. I am hoping he will share some of these foreign journals with us and translate it for us. It is possible that differences in terminology between the Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Eozhik could be due to language.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Coolabahapple what does this mean:
- "Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)"
Eozhik (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia community maintains lists of ongoing deletion debates organized by topic. Mathematics is one such topic; there are many others. These lists help editors who have an interest in a subject area to stay informed about when articles pertaining to that subject have been nominated for deletion. For example, I myself make fairly regular checks on the lists for mathematics, science, and biographies of scholars and academics. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- thanks XOR'easter for your response to Eozhik's question, my attitude is the more wikieditors involved in afds the better, hence why i add them to these lists:) Coolabahapple (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment--the best evidence of notability (that is, the list of citations and the images) is now collapsed. This risks rendering the whole deletion discussion illegitimate and I expect that it could be overturned should Eozhik wish to pursue deletion review.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Eozhik should just post quotes and links, not copyvio images. The removal of copyvio images isn’t a reason for DRV. — MarkH21talk 17:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- The images are significantly worse for discussion purposes than simple quotations of text, not least because it's harder to tell how many of them come from the same source. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Everybody can read the collapsed part of the discussion by clicking on the button "show" on the right. D.Lazard (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Eozhik should just post quotes and links, not copyvio images. The removal of copyvio images isn’t a reason for DRV. — MarkH21talk 17:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)