Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations

message: If you choose to add comments to this page, please do so in a separate section below.  Do not break-up my comments here.
===Raw count analysis===
*Delete
#85.140.89.48/88.60 (13 edits) <nominator> Moscow Russia IP
#RedAndr (4 edits)
#DGG (3 edits) 
*Keep
#Tevildo (2 edits) 
#Uncle G (2 edits)  
#Naruttebayo 
#89.218.78.218,174,131,101 also Nugmanova (67 edits) <author> Astana Kazakhstan IP's, 1 registered account all use signature "User:ngn"; presumed to be the same person,
*Ignored for purposes of determining rough consensus
#TenPoundHammer (4 edits) <listed AFD with no recommendation>
#SineBot (4 edits) doing what sineBot does
#Lady Galaxy (3 edits) recommended speedy delete, citing as reason "article is messy and contains a ton of headings, however not much text to go along with it. Google only brings up 1,180 hits for this term"
#Fosnez pointed out speedy deletion was not applicable, made no other recommendation for this afd
#Metropolitan90 non-participatory edit
===Rough consensus rationale===
The deletes said that the subject was non-notable, unreferenced, and OR.  Some suggested that the author of the article was closely related to the subject, however this was not substantiated, and was denied by the author.  Some stated that the sources cited were co-authors, but the basis for this statement was unclear.  One stated that the equations themselves do not exist, which was determined to be illogical.
The keeps said that the subject was Published in legitimate peer-reviewed journals, is verifiable and therfore not OR, and as to RS, they specifically stated this subject was published in Physics Letters, the Journal of Mathematical Physics, and the Journal of Physics A.  Although the quality of these sources was refuted, the fact that the sources do cover the subject non-trivially was not denied.
Substantial discussion was held about the motivations, biases, prejudices, and dishonesty of other editors.  This unproductive banter was difficult to wade through, and has been duly ignored.  
A lot of discussion was held about these equations being derivations of other equations.  It was unclear at the end of the discussion if there was any agreement of this point.  These arguments did not seem very important to me (an admitted non-expert in this field), however, as it seems to me that if these equations were published in numerous peer-reviewed journals, where they received non-trivial coverage, that they meet WP:N.  But in the end this was not the basis for the no consensus closure.  The basis was that there was sufficient participation with no real directional change to the discussion, where responsible wikipedians were split on their view.  This is how I define no consensus.
JERRY talk contribs 00:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing administrators remarks

message: The deletes said that the subject was non-notable, unreferenced, and OR.  Some suggested that the author of the article was closely related to the subject, however this was not substantiated, and was denied by the author.  Some stated that the sources cited were co-authors, but the basis for this statement was unclear.  One stated that the equations themselves do not exist, which was determined to be illogical.
The keeps said that the subject was Published in legitimate peer-reviewed journals, is verifiable and therfore not OR, and as to RS, they specifically stated this subject was published in Physics Letters, the Journal of Mathematical Physics, and the Journal of Physics A.  Although the quality of these sources was refuted, the fact that the sources do cover the subject non-trivially was not denied.
Substantial discussion was held about the motivations, biases, prejudices, and dishonesty of other editors.  This unproductive banter was difficult to wade through, and has been duly ignored.  
A lot of discussion was held about these equations being derivations of other equations.  It was unclear at the end of the discussion if there was any agreement of this point.  These arguments did not seem very important to me (an admitted non-expert in this field), however, as it seems to me that if these equations were published in numerous peer-reviewed journals, where they received non-trivial coverage, that they meet WP:N.  But in the end this was not the basis for the no consensus closure.  The basis was that there was sufficient participation with no real directional change to the discussion, where responsible wikipedians were split on their view.  This is how I define no consensus.
JERRY talk contribs 00:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rough consensus rationale