Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multidimensional singularity

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. ✗plicit 14:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multidimensional singularity

[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!

Multidimensional singularity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to be an editor (Alexander Klimets) presenting their own research as a Wikipedia article; but his research doesn't seem to have received any attention so far[1] (listed on Google Scholar, but no citations[2]). Fram (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. Scholar yields ~35 hits for "multidimensional singularity"; none are secondary sources about this formulation of the term. Articles are mostly about topology, image processing, and mathematics, not physics. Google hits are mostly stock images. Anerdw (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and salt, per WP:!. This is clearly the same as the recently published Science Set paper, with much of the same wordage. As such it is a reproduction of the original editors own work, as noted by the nominator. Indeed, the name is the same, clear evidence of an (undeclared) COI. It is worth noting that the originator has had an account for some time, with a few past warnings. Hence there is no need to be gentle to a newbie. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have not seen any significant objections in the past time. Publish.Alexander Klimets (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2025 (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.