Deletion of Asynchronous logic (algebra)

Comment: I was convinced by David Eppstein's argument.  Although Vasyukevich's work is featured in a book released by the respected academic publishing house Springer-Verlag, it appears that very few other researchers or design engineers are currently employing his mathematical techniques, and that makes it non-notable from the standpoint of .  As I stated previously, asynchronous logic design and verification, along with the underlying mathematical methods, do represent an established branch of electronics engineering and potentially could be the subject of a WP article.  Because the mathematical and engineering aspects are very closely linked, the title should be something along the lines of Asynchronous logic design, and the content would have to be entirely different to reflect the standard methods used in that industry.  If such an article existed, a brief mention could be made of Vasyukevich's work because it has been featured in |reliable sources.  Anything more than a brief mention (including an entire article about it) would be providing  weight to a very narrow, specialized, line of research that (as it appears) only Vasyukevich is currently pursuing.  (Sequential logic would not be a good redirect destination IMHO because its discussion of asynchronous logic doesn't even touch upon the underlying algebraic design or verification methods at all.)   At any rate, it doesn't seem to me that the current article has  or salvageable content, so my vote is "delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:UNDUE||WP:POTENTIAL)

Comment: I tried looking up "venjunction" and "sequention" in Google scholar (key concepts for the subject of this article, apparently) http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Venjunction%22+%22sequention%22. It only found eight hits, six of them by V. Vasyukevich and the other two being a preprint that cites VV (with the only uses of these words being in the title of the citation) and  a set of lecture notes by someone else that mentions this material in approximately the same level of detail as the article here. My conclusion is that this is one researcher's idiosyncratic take on the subject and |not yet mainstream enough to be an appropriate subject of a Wikipedia article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)