Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (3rd nomination)

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. The following opinions have been discounted: "keep per old AfD" (I am not a search engine) and "delete per R Physicist" (no such editor commenting here). Sandstein (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myrzakulov equations

Please read the talk page before commenting or closing. --Random832 (contribs) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myrzakulov equations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural renomination - the last debate accomplished nothing but a lot of shouting on both sides. Due to the unusual circumstances and the disruption caused by the poor structure of the previous discussion, I think this AFD should have stricter rules than usual - absolutely no comments other than a single delete or keep [with reasoning explained] (or a comment from a user who has made neither) will be permitted below - anything else will be moved to the talk page. All other discussion, including direct responses to !vote rationales and suggestions that there are single-purpose accounts, should go to the talk page. --Random832 (contribs) 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly notable as the subject of multiple independent reliable sources [1], [2], [3]. Yes, it does appear that Nugmanova is promoting this name, but--it's working. He's not the only one using the term now ([4]). JJL (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, because: (1) notability is not established from independent sources (list of authors includes either Myrzakulov or Nugmanova, or both), and there are no independent references from established scientific journals; (2) the subject belongs to a class of equations truly famous (Landau-Lifshitz type), and any relevant contribution from the article nominated here should be included in a Wikipedia entry about Landau-Lifshitz equations (the entry does not exist yet, but it should, as it is a well-known topic in mathematical physics). (Proscience) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.165.96.184 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete self-promotion with little or no meaningful independent peer review. These are non-notable noodlings on the old Heisenberg ferromagnetic spin equations, from which the author seems to be seeking to grab some publicity. The author will disagree with this take but the author is not an independent source. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep It is notable. The choice of name might not be optimal, and the writing might not be the best, but I do not think that precludes an article here.--Filll (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or possibly move to an article about Myrzakulov. The equations named after him, whether or not named by him, do not seem particularly notable, but the fact that he created the equations might be. Perhaps Florentin Smarandache could be a precedent for a move. Concur with 128.165.96.184 that an article on Landau-Lifshitz equations should exist, but this is not a a good start of that article, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the same reasons as I mentioned at the last AfD (near the top and near the bottom; if you want to read it you can skip the long dialogues) and on the talk page. Also, as a note, I've e-mailed R_Physicist to ask him if he would like to contribute anything, since he previously asked me to do so should this come to AfD again. I may be putting up an arguement of his by proxy, but it shouldn't be counted as a !vote (not that that means anything, really). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the same reasons as I used at the last AfD (particularly note that other specialists in this field will be teaching at Myrzakulov's institute). And, as proven above, other people are using the name now. The article still has problems, though, but I would not say that it cannot be improved now, so shortly after the last AfD. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sufficiently independent sources, a credible case made for self-promotion. Every variant of well-known equations does not deserve an encyclopaedia article. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as I said last time, as a matter of common sense, if a particular scientific theory in a very active field is published on almost entirely by one group, and a few scattered other people, it is probably not generally notable. If it is not yet generally written about because it is still new, it is almost by definition not yet notable. If X and his students are almost the only people who call something--even something notable-- X's Law, or X's Equations, then that name is not generally used and is almost certainly self-puffery. Newton's Laws are not named after him because he & his associates called it so. The same goes for everything else in the world. You can publish any number of papers referring to yourself, and it won't get you anywhere. That's why we want by substantial 3rd party coverage. I cannot say for sure whether this work is scientifically important, but I can say for sure that the name is not widely used, and that would hold even if it the papers were published in a language I understood even less of. and in a field I knew even less. It was mentioned last time they might be notable under another name, but nobody was able to suggest one, which proves my point exactly. DGG (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/merge into an article on Myrzakulov himself probably consisting primarily of this material. There are two separate issues in play here. The first is whether the equations themselves are "notable". Clearly they're notable enough to appear in reasonable journals, but we tend not to have articles on typical academic papers and there's no evidence these are anything other than fairly workaday papers with typical minor impact on the field. That said, I think a broader coverage of workaday papers would be useful and I'm reluctant to delete the material simply because the subject is not a major one of broad importance. The second issue is whether the phrase "Myrzakulov equations" is a self-promotional neologism. That certainly appears to be the case, with no google scholar hits outside works published by Myrzakulov or Nugmanova. That sort of thing tends to rub people, including me, the wrong way. I suggest a reasonable compromise is to make an article on Myrzakulov himself and to include this material as the bulk of the article. It's not that he seems to be hugely important, but enough so that an article on him would be reasonable. There are quite a few academics in my own field with articles who seem no more prominent than Myrzakulov is in his.
  Jpmonroe (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, article (more accurately, the list of equations and primary source academic papers), establishes zero notability for itself in the wider world, expert or not. MickMacNee (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. A quick google scholar search will show that the papers in which these were introduced are cited by a large number of people; just not necessarily by this name; I can understand why others might be under the mistaken impression that it isn't. I think perhaps a tutorial for Ebsco and GScholar searches is in order. Also, this nomination doesn't really bring anything new that hasn't been refuted by the past AfDs. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per R Physicist. Hesperian 03:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  t) 03:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per DGG per failure to satisfy
  WP:N and lack of sufficient independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for achieving notability. Using a term in one's own scientific publications is not an independent source to prove notability. Citation of Myrzakulov's papers in papers by others does not show that the term "Myrzakulov equations" has gained currency. Edison (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Attempt at self-promotion through unnotable equations. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These equations do not seem to have wide currency, their major proponent on Wikipedia has a clear conflict of interest as co-publisher wiht the originator, and no independent expert has credibly asserted their significance. Crucially, I find no evidence that these are currently significantly discussed (i.e. other than passing mentions) by anyone outside the originator's group. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I said the last time, there is an uncountable number of <insert the name of one or several physicists or mathematicians> equations, for example, the Witten–Dijkgraaf–Verlinde–Verlinde equations. Generally, they are used by a small number of people close to the named ones. Only a few of them gain notability among their field and so satisfy WP:N (significant coverage by sources independent of the subject). Here it's not the case, (look at google scholar), most of these papers are by the author or by Nugmanova. The difference with the above one is flagrant. No significant coverage by independent sources, it's pretty clear. Maybe in 30 years ? But
  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. For now, it's self promotion. Cenarium^Talk 16:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment (Please move this to the talk page or to my !vote above if necessary.) I argued against inclusion of the Erdős–Rubin conjecture, even though I'm the Rubin in question, as I didn't consider it notable. Perhaps Myrzakulov might consider similar reasoning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per R Physicist. We should defer to the judgement of experts in such cases, rather than driving them away (and thus I would like to register my strong disapproval with Cheeser1's disgraceful behaviour last time around).
  H₂O) 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per R Physicist. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per R Physicist (and strong agree with Dihydrogen Monoxide re Cheeser1's behaviour). —Moondyne click! 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Two comments. 1. Who is this R Physicist? Unless we know his name and credentials, his opinion means nothing. 2. This article has notability problems. Whoever made this article, he should clearly explain why these equations are notable in words understandable for a University student, with in line references to third-party sources. Then this article could stay.Biophys (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • His credentials have been verified - he works out of a major institution. Orderinchaos 17:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per R Physicist, and Guy's excellent summary. --InkSplotch (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per R Physicist, Proscience, and Guy.
  Woonpton (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per DGG, Guy and Cenarium. When citing a paper by Myrzakulov it makes sense to refer to these equations as "Myrzakulov's equations" and with the numbers he uses for them. But that doesn't mean that they are notable. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per R Physicist and the others. Non notable, cruft, poorly written &c.
  The Rationalist (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per R Physicist and Guy. If we are to be a reputable encyclopaedia, cruft and self-promotion has no place in it, even if it's subtle, technical and looks well-referenced. Orderinchaos 17:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's rare to see DGG saying an article should be deleted, so I read his arguments carefully, and I concur with them. To be notable, this subject needs multiple independent sources discussing it. That may or may not ever be the case; at this time, it certainly doesn't look like it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cruft and self-promotion.
  troll) 07:38, April 21
  , 2008