Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotype space

Stereotype space

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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

The reference to the article by Aristov is given in the list of references: Aristov, O.Yu. (2019). "Holomorphic Functions of Exponential Type on Connected Complex Lie Groups". Journal of Lie Theory. 29 (4): 1045–1070. ISSN 0949–5932. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) The author uses the term "stereotype algebra" at page 1061. The other sources either use this term, or the term "stereotype space", or mention research in this area. What is the problem? Eozhik (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC) We need non-primary references; i.e., some significant discussion of the notion in papers or books by authors other than the person who introduced the notion. Without them, we cannot say the notion has an established place in the math literature. -- Taku (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC) TakuyaMurata, what do you call "non-primary references"? As far as I understand, they are not the same as secondary sources. What is the difference? Eozhik (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC) By non-primary, I mean secondary or tertiary sources; works on stereotype space other than you or textbooks. —- Taku (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC) TakuyaMurata, as I told at the talk page, there are several secondary sources, including the ones that use the word "stereotype", and the ones that don't. Formally, there is even a tertiary source, a textbook that mentions this research. All these sources are listed in this article, so there is no necessity to google them. That is why your claim I cannot find enough literature to establish the notability of this notion. — sounds very strange. As well as your interpretation of the Wikipedia rules. Eozhik (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC) No, what we need is to see works on stereotype space by authors other than you. Some sources that mention the work isn’t enough; those sources need to study stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype space”. The notability in Wikipedia is more than whether the term is known; we need to see an established literate on the notion. —- Taku (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC) One way to establish the notability: is there any significant result on stereotype spaces by authors other than you? Has there been a workshop on the topic? We need to see the evidence of research activity by a group of mathematicians not just math works by you. —- Taku (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 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 Akbarov, S.S.; Shavgulidze, E.T. (2003). "On two classes of spaces reflexive in the sense of Pontryagin". Mat. Sbornik. 194 (10): 3–26. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) — 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 ${\mathcal {O}}_{exp}(G)$ of holomorphic functions of exponential type Aristov, O.Yu. (2019). "Holomorphic Functions of Exponential Type on Connected Complex Lie Groups". Journal of Lie Theory. 29 (4): 1045–1070. ISSN 0949–5932. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) — 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 Kuznetsova, Y. (2013). "A duality for Moore groups". Journal of Operator Theory. 69 (2): 101–130. arXiv:0907.1409. Bibcode:2009arXiv0907.1409K. doi:10.7900/jot.2011mar17.1920. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) — 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") Hernández, S.; Trigos-Arrieta, F.J. (2005). "Group duality with the topology of precompact convergence". J. Math. Anal. Appl. 303 (1): 274–287. doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2004.08.033. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) — ? Eozhik (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Again the problem is that those sources only mention “stereotype space” more specifically your works (but are not about stereotype spaces per se). The question on the notability is not whether people study a class of spaces like stereotype space. The question is whether “stereotype space” itself is notable on its own, *independent of your works*. —- Taku (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC) TakuyaMurata, what should I think about this: those sources only mention “stereotype space” ? In these works stereotype spaces are not just mentioned, they are studied. And what about this The question on the notability is not whether people study a class of spaces like stereotype space. The question is whether “stereotype space” itself is notable on its own, *independent of your works*. ? The authors study these spaces not because of "its own", but because they play important role in solving another problem, the propblem of constructing duality theory for noncommutative groups. Which exists independently on my works. Eozhik (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC) And people do not only study these spaces, they suggest concrete solutions of this problem for different classes of groups. Eozhik (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC) The key point is what you said “the propblem of constructing duality theory for noncommutative groups”. That’s what those papers are concerned about. That’s why a stereotype space is not independently notable. What is notable is the problems of duality and how to solve them. It does not follow that one particular solution is notable on its own. Wikipedia is not a place to present a solution (unless that solution becomes notable on its own). —- Taku (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC) What is meant here: The key point is what you said “the propblem of constructing duality theory for noncommutative groups”. That’s what those papers are concerned about. That’s why a stereotype space is not independently notable. What is notable is the problems of duality and how to solve them. ? This needs a translation. Which "problems of duality" do you mean here, TakuyaMurata? Eozhik (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC) I have meant problems of constructing good duality theory (for groups or others). That’s a certainly notable problem in mathematics. —- Taku (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC) TakuyaMurata if that is what you want to see, I have meant problems of constructing good duality theory (for groups or others). That’s a certainly notable problem in mathematics. — then your reproach becomes even more vague. Because the theory of stereotype spaces suggests a solution of this problem. On the other hand it becomes unclear which nuances do you see between what you say now and what you told before: The key point is what you said “the propblem of constructing duality theory for noncommutative groups”. That’s what those papers are concerned about. That’s why a stereotype space is not independently notable. What is notable is the problems of duality and how to solve them. ? If you say that a duality theory "for groups or others" will be notable, then why aren't the stereotype dualities for them notable? Eozhik (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC) And where do you take these criteria of notability? Eozhik (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC) The notability is not inherited; it is possible that some problem is notable while a solution to it is not necessary notable. The sources provided only show that there is a sufficient math literature on the problem of constructing duality theories that extends the Pontryagin duality (thus the problem is notable). They do not establish the notability for stereotype spaces since, aside from your papers, the primary sources, the secondary sources do not give an in-depth treatment of stereotype spaces. Some of theori results may be interpreted in the language of stereotype spaces but that does not make the theory of stereotype spaces notable on its own. —- Taku (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC) TakuyaMurata that is not enough. You should present a very sophisticated logical construction to persuade the interlocutor that the results published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are not notable. I would suggest you to send protests to the editorial boards, and after receiving responses to publish them here. And you should find a rule in Wikipedia, that allows you to delete this article. Eozhik (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Just because something appeared in a math journal doesn’t make it notable from the view of Wikipedia. That something has to have a strong presence in math literature; i.e, there is a sizable group of researchers studying it for an extended time period. Just like not every single actor who had a role in a movie is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. —- Taku (talk) 10:55, 10 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: TakuyaMurata, so your point is that a Wikipedia article must describe only what is written in textbooks, right? Eozhik (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Yes. Textbooks or some major monographs... -- Taku (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 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

That's where we came now. Gentlemen, if this is what was meant, then the investigation procedure in such cases needs a formalization. Now it looks awfully. My habilitation thesis was devoted to this topic. It was at the Moscow State University, Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics. The reviewers were from the Moscow State University, from the Steklov Institute of Mathematics and from the University of Caen Normandy. Eozhik (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC) No, that’s not the nomination reason; I am not saying what he does isn’t a valid mathematics research. But that’s not enough to satisfy the notability requirement. To quote from Wikipedia:Notability “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” All we have is the significant works on the stereotype spaces by User:Eozhik, Sergei Akbarov, himself. We need works by other than him on stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype spaces“ (for example, the abstract of the paper by Aristov [3] uses the term “locally convex algebra” and no “stereotype” in the abstract). As far as we understand, there is no such works. For the notion to be notable, at minimum, we need to know other researches use the term ”stereotype space” in their own works independent of User:Eozhik. —- Taku (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC) TakuyaMurata, this We need works by other than him on stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype spaces“ (for example, the abstract of the paper by Aristov [4] uses the term “locally convex algebra” and no “stereotype” in the abstract). As far as we understand, there is no such works. — is solipsism. Let us bet? If I find an article (in a peer-reviewed journal) where the author (other than me) explicitely uses the term "stereotype space" or "stereotype algebra", you pay me, say, $ 100. If not, I pay you this amount. Agree? Eozhik (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC) I forgot to add: this will be a work in the list of references of the discussed article. Eozhik (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC) More precisely, I should have said: we have not been presented a paper that (1) does not have you as an author or a co-author and that (2) explicitly states that it studies stereotype space; e.g., it has the term "stereotype space" in title or in abstracts. To repeat, what we need is an evidence that there is a sizable group of researches who study stereotype spaces *per se* for an extended period of time. The papers by authors other than you that are cited in the article are, as far as I can tell, about duality theory. They *only* establish the notability of the problem of duality but not of stereotype spaces per se. -- Taku (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC) TakuyaMurata, the problem with you is that you do not want to be responsible for your words. What about the bet? Eozhik (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC) I don't need to bet or supply the evidence of absence. All I'm saying is there is the absence of evidence that stereotype space is something widely studied in the math community. Without such evidence, we cannot have the article. -- Taku (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC) When a person is ready to be responsible for his words, there is no problem for him to bet. See how frivolous you are? Eozhik (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 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” What we need is a reference that discusses stereotype spaces *in depth* by authors other than you. Is there any? E.g., some paper whose title includes the term “stereotype space”. When I gave these references, you changed the requirements: We need non-primary references; i.e., some significant discussion of the notion in papers or books by authors other than the person who introduced the notion. Without them, we cannot say the notion has an established place in the math literature. -- Taku (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC) TakuyaMurata, what do you call "non-primary references"? As far as I understand, they are not the same as secondary sources. What is the difference? Eozhik (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC) By non-primary, I mean secondary or tertiary sources; works on stereotype space other than you or textbooks. —- Taku (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC) When I pointed out that these references are already given, you changed your claims like this: No, what we need is to see works on stereotype space by authors other than you. Some sources that mention the work isn’t enough; those sources need to study stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype space”. The notability in Wikipedia is more than whether the term is known; we need to see an established literate on the notion. —- Taku (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC) One way to establish the notability: is there any significant result on stereotype spaces by authors other than you? Has there been a workshop on the topic? We need to see the evidence of research activity by a group of mathematicians not just math works by you. —- Taku (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC) When I wrote that this is done in the listed papers, you wrote that the research must be "independent of my works": Again the problem is that those sources only mention “stereotype space” more specifically your works (but are not about stereotype spaces per se). The question on the notability is not whether people study a class of spaces like stereotype space. The question is whether “stereotype space” itself is notable on its own, *independent of your works*. —- Taku (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC) When I wrote that it is, you wrote that these works must be focused on a "notable problem in mathematics": I have meant problems of constructing good duality theory (for groups or others). That’s a certainly notable problem in mathematics. —- Taku (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 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“ We need works by other than him on stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype spaces“ (for example, the abstract of the paper by Aristov [4] uses the term “locally convex algebra” and no “stereotype” in the abstract). As far as we understand, there is no such works. So this brought us back to the beginning. When I suggested to bet, you changed your claims like this: (1) does not have you as an author or a co-author and that (2) explicitly states that it studies stereotype space; e.g., it has the term "stereotype space" in title or in abstracts. 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) I admit I was vague about what type of references I am asking for. In fact, I don’t really care about the types of references. Any reference will do if it establishes the notability of stereotype spaces. What I have been doing is explaining why the references you provide fail to establish the notability from the view of Wikipedia, and the notability is a requirement: I have already quoted Wikipedia:Notability. —- Taku (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC) To clarify, Taku, do you accept the citation I linked to in my previous post? If one were to find two more of a similar nature that would count in your opinion as meeting GNG?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC) @Epiphyllumlover: In my opinion, those references do not do; as far as I can tell, those non-primary sources only refer to or use the works of User:Eozhik. So, we know his research works are legitimate but it does not mean his work is notable in the Wikipedia sense. Anyone can publish a paper introducing a new concept and if the work is good gets a citation. That does not mean we can have a Wikipedia article on topic. we need evidence that this topic is something studied by a sizable group of researchers; e.g.. as I said, the simplest evidence of this would be any paper other than User:Eozhik that uses the term “stereotype space” in title or abstract. (By the way, I don’t think GNG covers a math topic; so the part of difficulty is a lack of the guidelines.) —- Taku (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Again this is my interpretation of the notability requirement but for a math topic to be covered in Wikipedia, we need to see some evidence of significance. In Wikipedia, we cannot have an article on every single actor or every single album just because they are legitimate actors or albums. Likewise, for a math topic, we need some evidence of significance; which can be in any form; e.g., there are a number of papers denoted to the topic, there has been a workshop devoted to the topic, chapters in a textbook on the topic, etc. —- Taku (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC) As I see, now it’s not enough for other authors to use this term, it’s not enough for them to prove statements in which this term is used, it is not enough for these statements to solve significant problems of mathematics. Now it is necessary for this term to be directly mentioned in the title or in the abstract of the articles that don't belong to me. The rest does not count. The content of the papers, the importance of the results, the usage of the term inside the paper, the keywords, — these details are no longer important. Gentlemen, this continuous moving of the border of requirements looks indecent. Why the border should now lie here, and not a few centimeters to the left or to the right — is a mystery, and the end of this is not seen. And this style of accusations in itself poses a certain moral problem: “I don’t understand what is written here, but it doesn’t matter, because for me it’s customary to simply blame the author for various absurd things, and when he makes excuses, his weak point is usually revealed, and this allows me to declare him a loser. And there is no discomfort in the fact that my accusations are absurd and self-contradictory because the goal is more important than the form: even if the weaknesses are not revealed, he will lose because I set the rules of the duel and I can change them as I want.” So I want to ask, is there a person here who could formulate the claims without deception? It would be fine if he could demonstrate responsibility for his words and have an idea of ​​the encyclopedic traditions and the boundaries of the rational. Eozhik (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Taku, I have similar reservations about the use of the "General Notability" guidelines with respect to not only math, but also niche scientific topics. The basic problem is that WP already skews towards what might be called "pop sci" type science coverage. Ostensibly the GNG requirement will help us keep out the cranks and crackpots-- but unfortunately the sensation they generate often makes them notable enough for an article, though it be critical of their theories. As a result I think it would be best to use a stricter interpretation of GNG against anything that is considered crank / crackpot territory outside of WP. For scientific and mathematical concepts not associated with cranks / crackpots, being cited or employed by three different authors in peer-reviewed journals should be enough to meet GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC) @Epiphyllumlover: I have never had a crank / crackpot concern; I am 100% certain that his work is a legitimate mathematical research. The question here is how much mathematical research topics Wikipedia should cover as standalone articles and the GNG is quite irrelevant to such a question. My view is that for a math topic to be covered, it needs to be more than one person's work (with some exception, like when the work is cited hundreds times); i.e., it's something studied by a math community. We have not been presented evidence of that. Here is an AfD quite similar to this one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Word-representable graph; legitimacy is often not enough. In any case, I think my position is clear; now, we really need opinions from other editors (in addition to yours). -- Taku (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC) So it has to be cited hundreds of times instead of three? Few people get their papers cited that much, especially in math. We don't treat animal and plant species with this! It only needs to be an accepted name by the scientific community. Why can't we treat math concepts like we do organisms?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC) @Epiphyllumlover: No, no, I was taking about an exception. My point was that a math research topic needs to be more than one person's work to be covered in Wikipedia; it needs to be studied by a sufficiently large group of mathematicians. Again the simplest evidence of such would be; there has been some workshop on the topic or a discussion on the topic in a textbook. Also, I do not believe the "stereotype space" is an "accepted name by the scientific community"; because often in abstracts or titles, you see terms like locally convex algebra and such, instead of "stereotype space". Presumably this is because "stereotype space" is not a commonly understood term. In mathematics, anyone can publish a paper introducing a new name and it might get cited; that does not mean that new name is commonly accepted. Workshops, textbooks, monographs, etc. are needed to determine some concept is now firmly part of the mathematical canon (cf. WP:NEOLOGISM) Also, again please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Word-representable graph; in this case, we do have a paper on the subject other than the originator of the topic and there is an (upcoming) textbook on the topic. So in that case, we do have evidence of significance of the topic. For "stereotype space" to be notable from the view of Wikipedia, we also need to see a similar kind of evidence. -- Taku (talk) 11:36, 12 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: Condensing operator Fano surface Fréchet surface Fubini theorem Fourier indices of an almost-periodic function Heegaard decomposition Homeomorphism group Hypercomplex functions Suzuki 2-group Superharmonic function Tertiary ideal 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) Taku, could you provide us list of either synonyms or broader and inclusive terms and phrases for stereotype space? "locally convex algebra" is one. After you do this, Eozhik, I think it would be good to evaluate them and whether you agree with Taku's judgement.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC) I don’t think there are many synonyms for stereotype spaces (locally convex algebra isn’t a synonym but a related term); they are a special case of a topological vector space. So, it’s fine to mention the term “stereotype space” in that article. But the question here is whether there are enough literature on the subject to justify a standalone article in Wikipedia; by literature, I mean the works other than by Eozhik. His works are indeed extensive but we need works by other people so that we know the topic is something studied by a math community not by an individual. —- Taku (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC) @Epiphyllumlover: in fact, this term has synonyms. Probably, the most authoritative source is the book by G. Köthe, "Topological Vector Spaces", Vol. I, where these spaces are called “polar reflexive spaces” (§ 23.9, p.308). Apparently, I should have mentioned this in the article, but I forgot about it because, according to my observations, 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. M.F.Smith in her pioneering work did not name these spaces in any way, she simply described the topology on the dual space X * and proved that X = X ** (and the topology she introduced was formally different from the topology of uniform convergence on totally bounded sets, but the results on Banach and reflexive spaces follow from her constructions). Same thing with W.C.Waterhouse. B.S.Brudovsky called these spaces "c-reflexive space" (as far as I remember), and K.Brauner calls them “p-reflexive spaces”. F. Garibay Bonales, F.J. Trigos-Arrieta, R. Vera Mendoza, S. Hernandez call them polar-reflexive spaces following Kothe. In Russia, these spaces are usually called "stereotype". Eozhik (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Can you list a variety of such Russian sources here?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Epiphyllumlover, if we don't count my own papers and the papers of my co-author, then the list will be the following: Kuznetsova, Y. (2013). "A duality for Moore groups". Journal of Operator Theory. 69 (2): 101–130. arXiv:0907.1409. Bibcode:2009arXiv0907.1409K. doi:10.7900/jot.2011mar17.1920. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Aristov, O.Yu. (2019). "Holomorphic Functions of Exponential Type on Connected Complex Lie Groups". Journal of Lie Theory. 29 (4): 1045–1070. arXiv:1903.08080. Bibcode:2019arXiv190308080A. ISSN 0949–5932. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) Tabaldyev, S.B. (2006). "On strict homological dimensions of algebras of continuous functions". Mathematical Notes. 80 (5): 715–725. doi:10.1007/s11006-006-0192-6. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) There are also some papers that are not published yet, only announced in arXiv, in particular, this one: Oleg Aristov (2020). On holomorphic reflexivity conditions for complex Lie groups. arXiv:2002.03617 In three of these papers the stereotype spaces are not studied "in itself", the authors apply them to an old problem, the problem of constructing duality theory for non-commutative groups. And they receive important and very unexpected results: they construct duality theories for different classes of groups without the shortcomings of the other theories, as it is explained here and here: One of the drawbacks of these general theories, however, is that in them the objects generalizing the concept of group are not Hopf algebras in the usual algebraic sense. This deficiency can be corrected (for some classes of groups) within the framework of duality theories constructed on the basis of the notion of envelope of topological algebra. Eozhik (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC) References I think it is worth noting that this area, topological vector spaces, is currently not as popular as in the 60s and 70s, for this reason now quite a few people are engaged in it. In particular, conferences on this science are not being held now (and that is why there are no workshops). After the well-known events in Russia I know only several people here who are interested in these things. I believe, however, that this doesn't mean that these people must be treated as madmen. Eozhik (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC) In order to demonstrate notability under the GNG rule, you would need to show examples of the use of the term from the papers, and it would probably have to be employed more than once. (And please translate for us, too.) This is because term "stereotype" is not evident from the titles.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Epiphyllumlover, I don't understand. Does this mean that people don't look inside the articles? I can give pictures if this is necessary. File:Kuznetsova-1.png File:Kuznetsova-2.png File:Kuznetsova-3.png File:Kuznetsova-4.png File:Aristov-1.png File:Tabaldyev.png File:Shavguidze-1.png File:Shavguidze-2.png File:Hernandes-Trigos.png Eozhik (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC) For a pdf, no they probably don't, unless you provide a phrase for them to search. For Google Books, it often highlights the phrase for you which is nice. I've never seen pictures in a deletion discussion before. If they don't get deleted, this is great and I think it will prove your point better than anything you've written so far.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Epiphyllumlover, what were we talking about all this time, if it turns out that people don't look inside the references that give to each other? If this is important the procedure must be formalized by indicating that the author of the article is obliged to give scanned pictures that confirm references. Eozhik (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• 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:

For deserving having its own article, such a concept should either having been studied by many people (this is not the case here)

How many people had to study this class of spaces so that in your opinion it became notable?

or it should have been useful outside the strict study of the concept. No evidence has been given that this is 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)

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)

• 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
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:

except for really involved people, nobody want to read these walls of texts

For me the rules of this game remain unclear, what I find very strange. In particular, you did not comment this:

How many people had to study this class of spaces so that in your opinion it became notable?

Eozhik (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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, this is not a personal question, this concerns the rules of Wikipedia. If you write that your vote is based on this opinion

For deserving having its own article, such a concept should either having been studied by many people (this is not the case here)

— 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)

• 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)

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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)