Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asynchronous logic (algebra)

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. Secret ^account 23:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asynchronous logic (algebra)

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

I declined a speedy of "self-promotion, only one person using this concept and he's basically trying to get people to buy his book" because it was contested and it's not a clearcut case. However, all the given refs for the topic do appear to be the same author, and talk-page notes inability to find independent refs for a key aspect/term. Possible COI of main editor. DMacks (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sign of independent RS, all sources by one author. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Special algebraic methods are used in the design and verification of digital circuits that use asynchronous logic. Several WP:RS document these methods, including [1],[2],[3] and a Google search for "asynchronous logic" + "algebra" will reveal more. However, another article already documents asynchronous sequential logic (without all of the algebraic formulations). Moreover, (due to my lack of technical expertise in this field), I'm not certain whether the algebraic formulations in the article under review reflect standardized, widespread, industry practice or just a narrow field of specialized research? If the latter, it could be a case of excessive detail for a general purpose encyclopedia which Sequential logic already covers (or could be edited to better cover) in a more general manner. --Mike Agricola (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly sounds like excess detail. Happy to go with a Redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried looking up "venjunction" and "sequention" in Google scholar (key concepts for the subject of this article, apparently) [4]. It only found eight hits, six of them by V. Vasyukevich and the other two being a preprint that cites VV (with the only uses of these words being in the title of the citation) and a set of lecture notes by someone else that mentions this material in approximately the same level of detail as the article here. My conclusion is that this is one researcher's idiosyncratic take on the subject and not yet mainstream enough to be an appropriate subject of a Wikipedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was convinced by David Eppstein's argument. Although Vasyukevich's work is featured in a book released by the respected academic publishing house Springer-Verlag, it appears that very few other researchers or design engineers are currently employing his mathematical techniques, and that makes it non-notable from the standpoint of WP:GNG. As I stated previously, asynchronous logic design and verification, along with the underlying mathematical methods, do represent an established branch of electronics engineering and potentially could be the subject of a WP article. Because the mathematical and engineering aspects are very closely linked, the title should be something along the lines of Asynchronous logic design, and the content would have to be entirely different to reflect the standard methods used in that industry. If such an article existed, a brief mention could be made of Vasyukevich's work because it has been featured in reliable sources. Anything more than a brief mention (including an entire article about it) would be providing WP:UNDUE weight to a very narrow, specialized, line of research that (as it appears) only Vasyukevich is currently pursuing. (Sequential logic would not be a good redirect destination IMHO because its discussion of asynchronous logic doesn't even touch upon the underlying algebraic design or verification methods at all.) At any rate, it doesn't seem to me that the current article has WP:POTENTIAL or salvageable content, so my vote is "delete". --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:49, 21 March 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.