Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernoulli space

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernoulli space

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

This article is blatant WP:SYN. The term "Bernoulli space" is rarely used - Google finds only a hundred or so results - and the user Stochastikon-Bernoulli has written at least half a dozen articles discussing elements of it, all primarily drawn from the work of Elart von Collani, whose company is called Stochastikon. The user has not only cited Elert's work, but also linked the company website and other projects. In multiple articles. Guy (Help!) 00:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support for all of these connected nominations; they all form one big walled garden of original research with no independent verifiability. I've been meaning to nominate these myself for months and just haven't felt able to commit the time to see it through.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above for at least Bernoulli space, Causal thinking and Stochastic thinking (haven't checked the others yet). Minimal presence and use of these terms outside of the few publications apparently directly connected to the originator, and consisting of novel synthesis with a few camouflaging references to auxiliary concepts. This is an attempt to use WP to make the topics notable, which is exactly the wrong way round. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Causal thinking. XOR'easter (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as grandiose puffery, unsupported and unsupportable. XOR'easter (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junk and original research like the rest of this walled garden. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:OR and promotion of primary source that survive for so long. I am in support of deleting all these OR articles by this user because they are all similar and sourced from same source –Ammarpad (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2017 (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.