Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwyer function

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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No references to use, other than by colleagues and students of John Dwyer (also up for deletion), and no references before a month ago. No references outside the team of use under that name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. {{Prod}}ed by me, two {{Prod2}}, but there is an editor opposed, even if the prod hasn't been removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as one of the {{Prod2}} placers. The professor in question doesn't seem to be notable in any way, so I doubt his "function" is either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (as the other prod endorser) - fails WP:VER because I can see no reliable sources that refer to this function as the "Dwyer function". The only supplied references that use this name appear to be self-published. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:V, WP:N and possibly even WP:NOR. There are no sources in recognized and established scholarly publications that use the term "Dwyer function" in relation to this function or that mention this function by any other name. The term appears to be used only in two papers by Dwyer posted at the Algana Associates website[1], which is associated with Dwyer[2]. The website has no other papers posted, no editorial board, no refereeing procedure, no editorial statement and no submission procedure posted. No hits in GoogleScholar[3], WebOfScience or Scopus for anything to do with Algana Associates. So the two Algana Associates articles are essentially self-published and do not pass WP:RS. The subject of the article also fails WP:N. There is no indication that the name "Dwyer function" in relation to this function is widely accepted or even widely used in the scientific community. In fact, apart from a few false positives, GoogleScholar[4] and WebOfScience return zero hits in relation to the "Dwyer function". Even the plain Google search[5] returns only 32 hits, most of which are false positives. Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See the talk page, no hits of this on Google scholar, and none on mathscinet. The only actual "publication" is an obvious unreliable source, Algana Associates, which is not an academic journal. Publications in academic journals are the basic standard of reliability and notability in the mathematical sciences. silly rabbit (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• We now have a content fork of the same article at D function, which should also be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certainly not notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2008 (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.