Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On a conjecture concerning the petersen graph
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
— [[User talk:‎Dricherby|talk]]), 09:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)