Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Point-accessibility operators for temporal logic

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 and consensus is a redirect would not be helpful Star Mississippi 01:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point-accessibility operators for temporal logic

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:Original research. The user who created the page identifies as the author of the article in which the concept of point-accessibility operators in this sense was introduced for the first time, and on which the page is largely based on. The article itself was published in 2021 and has no citations. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Temporal logic maybe (it’s borderline), but it’s certainly not independently notable. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be a very useful redirect, since the title is quite complicated and the page is an orphan. —Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable logical operator, and deleting it isn't anyone's loss because it was copied from an open-access paper anyway. Might deserve a mention on temporal logic#Temporal operators, but the author being its inventor also makes it verge on promotion. Would not be useful as a redirect either. small jars tc 09:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find notability as a criterion of the deletion quite strange, for the extension I present is quite notable: PA-operators are able to express the antique statistical operators, Priorian operators (both for linear and branching systems), and of course all particular examples of Von Wright's operators. If it helps, the article could be renamed as Temporal Operators. I intended to add definitions of the earlier operators to the article. Wikieditor 247 (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a specific definition of what notability means, here: WP:GNG Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The presented temporal operator schema appears quite notable, as they can be applied in defining earlier operators. Moreover, point-accessibility appears quite natural and handy, compared to Priorian operators for branching systems. I think it is important to share this original idea of Von Wright, which has been developed by Styrman, in wikipedia. Salviati-II (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Salviati-II, could you please take a look at WP:COWORKER and disclose any connection if relevant. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I can see that defining Priorians in terms of PAOs might be more informative than defining PAOs as a generalisation of Priorians, but they are still not notable because they do not have enough coverage in independent sources ("notable" really means "noted"). As for Von Wright, diachronic modalities don't seem any more popular. If you think it's worthwhile you can add a mention of them to the temporal logic article. small jars tc 19:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines. No prejudice to recreating the article in the future when and if it does. PianoDan (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2023 (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.