Deletion of Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination)

Comment: I am strongly against Arthur Rubin's proposal to merge with Chebyshev polynomials. While it is not completely obvious to determine whether Boubaker polynomials should be or not included in WP, if the answer happens to be "yes include them", they have not to be included in an important article, which would be a violation of  : it's important not to give a casual reader of  Chebyshev polynomials a hint that Boubaker polynomials are in some way at the same scale of importance than say  Lucas polynomials. Hierarchising information is the main task in building encyclopedic content
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUEWEIGHT)

Comment: Looking over the bibliography, WT:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination)#Reference list, I have managed to do cursory verification of enough sources from enough respectable journals.  I read through a few of the articles and while they don't strike me as nobel prize work, they also do not strike me as fraud or trickery, etc.  I think we can assume that (some of) the articles cited are just fine.  For me, there are enough '''significant coverage''' in '''independently edited and published reliable sources''' to satisfy the |notability guideline
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Due to the rather special circumstances around this article, I underline that in this discussion, everything should be fact-checked. I see you consider as significant the papers of 2008 by Slama and Ganouchi (correct spelling seems to be Ghanouchi). I could not find on the web the tables of contents of '' International Journal of Heat and Technology'' for 2008 - by some unhappy circumstance, they have not been refreshed since 2007 on their website http://termserv.casaccia.enea.it/eurotherm/indexHT.html. We should not forget that socks of Mr B. editing the article had willingly "forgotten" the name of Boubaker in at least one author list, as results from some independant fact-checking by {{u|Jitse Niesen}} http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boubaker_polynomials&diff=269576050&oldid=269400989. Hence I fear your naive assertion according to which we know until now papers published by three "independent parties" should not be used as a decision basis unless previously thoroughly checked. Assuming  from KB sockpuppets would not be very reasonable. (As far as I could search myself, Slama coauthored very recently a paper with Boubaker : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6THV-4TPX0JH-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=19a1ed71931c089ec92222ab714607fb I have no access to its contents, but reading a line of its bibliography through Google, it seems that the 2008 paper to be found pp. 49-53 in International Journal of Heat Transfer and Technology is coauthored by J. Ghanouchi, H. Labiadh and K. Boubaker
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:GOODFAITH)