Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden section transform

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. Daniel (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Golden section transform

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A contested prod. Apparently, the person who contested the prod and who wrote the original article is Jun Li himself. The prod rationale was: An unencyclopedically-written article on a subject that seems to appear only in a single primary source. I can find no citations to Li's work in Google scholar (indeed, I can't even find Li's paper there), and I can find nothing in Google scholar that uses the phrase "Golden section transform". So this appears to be

WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete Appears to be utterly non-notable and possibly OR as well as pure maths. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge In fact, whether "Golden section transform" personally I named will be notable or not depends on herself, not me or any other people on planet earth. I spent my precious time doing the research and just named it normally, I got the idea when I was 20 years old in college, then I published it in 2007 mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Golden_section_transform, that's it. I don't mind Wikipedia deleting it or merging it into Discrete cosine transform or Discrete Fourier transform, I just want to say that it has the potential to be an independent article for some different content which I haven't published yet, so I decided to organize the content to be a single article at this point. Every Wikipedia reader has the right to know the knowledge if they couldn't get it from the other people. Also, if some readers who are in the signal processing field could get benefits from it, it will make a whole lot of sense. Jasonli1880 (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading Mr. Li's statements here and on the talk page I have to agree that this concept, however important Mr Li may feel it to be, has not generated notice in either the academic, commercial, of industrial fields. It has no sources other than Mr. Li's own research. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.