Deletion of Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination)

Comment: though I do not like it. Nothing much changed since the last AfD: the text still looks horrible and notability is still borderline. Twice mentioned on google books (the authors do not seem to belong to the same clique: http://books.google.be/books?um=1&q=%22Myrzakulov+equations%22), 28 times mentioned on google scholar (http://scholar.google.be/scholar?hl=nl&lr=&q=%22Myrzakulov+equations%22), and although the quotes are from the same clique, I notice that here in Belgium Google tells me I can find the quotes on an online reference base of Brussels University. That kind of thing takes work and time devoted by someone to put those things accessible online and there are three of them. The number of googles has naturally gone down since January as the article was in the spotlight in January due to deletion drives on English Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia and the Online Soviet Dictionary, and it got indeed deleted on the last two. I do not like the article either, it needs to be substantially rewritten in order to look like an encyclopaedic entry, there is probably some COI involved, probably not by the author himself but by one of his associates, who desperately wanted to keep this thing on Wikipedia. That reflects not on (the limited number of) external references, but mostly on the content: some of the equations are not even Myrzakulov's (in fact a good idea would be to just give a mathematically sound summary of the whole kaboodle and only literally quote the first one which according to google seems to be noteworthy as the "Lakshmanan-Myrzakulov equation" - 69 googles of the total of 217 for Myrzakulov equation). All that is wrong with this article (and you do not need to be a scientist to see that almost everything is wrong with it) does not justify deleting it. As the guy is Kazakh, writes primarily in Russian (having studied at Tomsk University, yes, I've done my homework) and seems to have struck a chord only with Chinese scientists, this may also be a case of . What really gets me over the edge to propose  '''keep''', is that the guy may be a freak, but not a fraud or a fringe theorist.  Have a look at http://www.emu.kz/obrazovanie-1/poslevuzovskoe-obrazovanie/doktorantura-phd/novosti-i-sobytiya/schedule-of-the-visit-of-foreign-professors/view?set_language=en this. Now google for "De Witt Sumners" or "Avraham Soffer" (Abraham is a common Russian mistake here) to know who they are, and add "nonlinear wave" to see what they do. They do not seem to think Myrzakulov is a fraud. Of course, if after their visit, the equation count continues to go down, that may mean this name is not going to catch on. In the meantime, it is just a question of fixing it, and I gave an indication how it could be done, but sorry, I am not a mathematician
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS)

Comment: I made a research on the matter and reviewed the positions of each party. I'm not an expert on the subject but I have some knowledge on how things work in the field of theoretical physics. It's a strange and confusing area, as many wikipedians have probably found out by now... I have a good knowledge of Wikipedia policy too. There is something very important in  that makes the difference here, I cite: "...it has received '''significant''' coverage in...". In this context, it means that mere mentions or cross references are not enough. I see some non trivial developments by the author and related, but no substantial coverage by other sources. They are thousands of " equations", for example, the http://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=fr&lr=&q=%22Witten%E2%80%93Dijkgraaf%E2%80%93Verlinde%E2%80%93Verlinde+equations&btnG=Rechercher&lr= Witten–Dijkgraaf–Verlinde–Verlinde equations or the http://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=fr&lr=&q=%22Veltman-Bell+equations&btnG=Rechercher&lr= Veltman-Bell equations, just try the name of a physicist and equation after that on google. Of course, only a few are notable w.r.t . In response to comments above, it's always possible to reduce the field of study so that they become notable there but I don't see the interest of doing so. Hence I support '''Deletion''', no rename, no merge, it's not in renaming an article that we make its subject notable! Even if the nominator has a coi, it doesn't affect the issue of the afd if consensus is formed that the article should be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)