Deletion of On a conjecture concerning the petersen graph

Comment: Academic papers are not inherently notable and this one doesn't seem to have had any more impact than the norm and certainly doesn't meet . I don' think there's any need to merge any of the content into Petersen graph: people conjecture and prove things all the time.  Full proofs (or disproofs) of long-standing conjectures can be worth a comment but "Robertson, with some co-authors, provided a partial proof of one of his own conjectures" isn't likely to be, even with Robertson being one of the world's leading graph theorists.  Also, though this isn't a reason for deletion, the current article seems somewhat inaccurate, since it talks about "the counterexample", which is not a counterexample to the conjecture but, rather, to the idea that a stronger version of the conjecture holds for non-cubic graphs. ‎User:Dricherby|‎Dricherby
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This paper seems to have no citations in other works and the only web refs I could find are pointers to this paper or an associated conference presentation. The work seems non-notable, or at least it is . The work itself doesn't prove the conjecture, only a special (albeit useful) case. The new editor creating this article also created one other article, on Michael D. Plummer, also an author on the paper, suggesting that the editor may have some association to this paper or its authors. With the paper falling below general notability guidelines, and no other secondary works discussing this proof, this article also fails general notability guidelines, per . Given no secondary references or citations found, even verifiability is in question, so a merge is not recommended at this time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:GNG)