Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Connor Transform

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 per consensus ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connor Transform

Non-notable mathematical device. Nothing at all on Google Scholar; only hits on Google appear to be on forums and newsgroups (most of which, in themselves, seem to be spam from the creator of the transform), therefore I'm assuming it's original research. PROD removed by article creator. Oli Filth^(talk) 09:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Nothing in GoogleScholar[1] or WoS. No evidence that the term or the object it refers to have substantial use in the scientific community. Fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. There are no reliable sources establishing the notability of this topic. Within the context of scientific articles, a reliable source is generally a paper in a peer-reviewed journal with a reputation for fact-checking. Absence of any such references in the article, and further lack of any hits on Google scholar, establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the topic of this article fails to meet the guidelines set forth in the WP:N policy. silly rabbit (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete if you want but you will be removing a valuable contribution to computer science from wikipedia. Any rational reading of the article and contemplation of the implications would reveal that a) It is entirely correct. b) It is indeed novel, as you yourselves have established. c) That it is of such extreme utility that that outweighs it's lack of scholarly background. Anyway up to you, but you will be putting it back in a few years time. Sean O'Connor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatom (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Items a) and b) are irrelevant for notability. Regarding c), if you can prove it by multiple references to independent reliable sources, then great. If not, the article has no business being on Wikipedia now. If in a couple of years it turns out that the scientific community has picked up this term and it has become widely used, then nobody will have a problem with adding this entry back to Wikipedia. Nsk92 (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is OR. As Nsk92 said, if it becomes notable, we'll be glad to add it then. Things that might become notable, but aren't right now, don't belong here. Merenta (talk) 02:32, 11 May 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.