Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upsilon function

Upsilon function

[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!

Upsilon function (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article has been unsourced since 2017. I am unable to find reliable sources that cite this function, and nothing that has been published in an academic journal about it. Google search brings up a lot of Wikipedia mirrors and some sources about something else by the same name (different mathematicians). ... discospinster _talk 21:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 21:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This appears to be unsourced original research. Google Scholar has no publications on this by Emami and Jamali. MathSciNet has no listings that even mention both Emami and Jamali. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Like David Eppstein, I tried and failed to find evidence of a published paper to which this refers; I do not believe one exists. Coincidentally, the creator of this article returned to WP a few days ago, after 4 years absence, to write Draft:Jamali_equation, an equation apparently introduced in a paper by Jamali in May of 2021 linked on Researchgate. In other words, this article is the creation of a SPA/COI account promoting brand-new, unpublished research. --JBL (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is not coincidental: the new draft (and repeated attempts to push it into mainspace) brought attention to the earlier article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Search finds some upsilon functions, but none that are clearly the same as this one. Looks like Wikipedia may have the honour of being the original source for this particular gem! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I've also not been able to find anything published supporting the claims in the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]