Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udita fractional operator

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Udita fractional operator

Udita fractional operator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article appears only in the recent PhD thesis of Udita N. Katugampola, and one recently published article by the same person. No credible independent sources refer to "Udita fractional operator", making at least the title of the article a WP:NEOLOGISM. Furthermore, User:Uditanalin contributed substantially to the article (as did a number of other single-purpose accounts). Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it was not demonstrated that this new mathematical concept got sufficient attention in its field.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was one of the contributor for this article. I would like to give my opinion on this matter. As far as mathematics is concerned, it takes time to get it spread. Everything has to start somewhere, so I do not think you should delete this article just because it has some sources from a PhD thesis. But I do noticed that some other authors from around the world has used the concept of udita fractiona operator in their work. So I do believe it is an independent concept, which needs some attention. As an author, I am also using this concept in my current research. I can include, these references once those papers get published. __mathproff (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • — MathProff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am not agree with Slawomir Bialy (talk · contribs) argument. New authors can contribute to wikipedia that is the whole point of this huge project. Anybody can see that Slawomir Bialy (talk · contribs) has deleted some of the work contributed by MathProff. May be Slawomir does not like these authors personaly. Another thing, one of the famous author has referred this operator in his/her book, Fractional Calculus. An Introduction for Physicists, by Richard Herrmann on page 248. Several other authors follow this work in their research. That is enough to keep this article live. -mathbuddy (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • — MathBuddy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment What do you mean? New authors cannot contribute anything?
      • When large numbers of single purpose new accounts show up at the same deletion discussion, it is very suspicious. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In mathematics, physics or anyother science subject or even outside science, it has enough evidence that whoever introduce a new concept will get credits for it. We have heard about Newton's law, Hadamard operator, Riemann integral or Einstein's convention and things like that. This is because, there should be a name to refer to this special case. So I do not think there is any conflict with WP:NEOLOGISM here. -mathbuddy (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not correct. Dozens of thousands of papers get published every year, most of them introduce new concepts, and most of these papers never get cited. For us, a new theory is notable if there is a proof that it got considerable attention in the corresponding scientific community - proven, for instance, by number of citations, or by number of apperances outside the works of the author. In this case, this number is zero or at least is in single digits.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see no evidence that this term exists outside of the original author's own work. I did a search of Herrmann's book and could not find the term. --Kinu ^t/_c 12:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Please check page 248 for the reference. Other than that, you can find 5 citations in [|Google Scholar] 3 of those are outside of author's work. Somebody has to introduce it to the community. You will see this term soon in the future. -mathbuddy 09:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure. Please come back after the first thousand citations.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The paper may appear in the bibliography, but Herrmann does not refer to the "Udita fractional operator", nor, as far as I can tell, does he specifically mention Katugampola's work anywhere in the text. Also, mere listings of the work in Google scholar are not "citations". Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am sorry to say this, but I have to tell you. Do you have any knowledge of advanced mathematics? Did you really check any of those cited work? In mathematics nobody cites anything if there is no any use of it. As far as I can understand, this work has to be reviewed by those who have some knowledge of the subject, but not by a foreigner to mathematics, otherwise it would be like a review of a French novel by English reader, no idea what they are talking about. Let's wait until somebody who has some knowledge of the subject, other than the authors, make a comment on the article. -mathbuddy 15:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a ridiculous ad hominem attack. Tell me, where in that book is the work actually cited? Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC) And, not that it's relevant, but I am a mathematician.[reply]
          • I did not attack anybody, I just suggest what is more appropriate in this situation. For about the citation, please contact the author and ask him where he cited the work, if you canno find it by yourself. I do not think this author is an idiot. You said it is not relevant here. But I am not agree with you. A mathematical judgments has to be done by those who know mathematics. I think anybody can understand that. - (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Absent clear evidence to the contrary, the author did not site the work, much less use the exact term "Udita fractional operator", which is what we'd need for an article by that title. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • As for "please contact the author and ask him where he cited the work"... or you could simply tell us instead of playing a cat-and-mouse game, since that appears to be the crux of your argument. "I do not think this author is an idiot"... well, neither do I, but I fail to see how this opinion has any relevance here. What is important is an objective assessment of whether his work discusses this topic or not, and it in this case it appears to be the latter. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I contacted the author of that book and here what he says, "On page 248 of my book indeed the article Kalugampola, U. (2010), New approach to a generalized fractional integral, arXiv:1010.0742v1[math.CA] from the year 2010 is listed as an example for further reading, but I leave it up to the reader to judge about the value of this article." The rest is upto yours. MathProff (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I get zero hits for the title in Google books, Google scholar, and MathSciNet. Wikipedia should not be in the business of promoting new theories, it should follow the recognition that those theories get in the academic community. In this case, no such recognition means no article here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do not know the user user:uditanalin personally, but have used this integral operator several times in my reaserch and thought to contribute to this article. I am not against you, if you feel that there shouldn't be an article of this name. At the same time, it would be an help to mathematical community if there is an integral with this name cos this can help whoever want to adopt it. -mathproff 19:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable yet, if ever. Greglocock (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was the one who started this work as an experimental page on sandbox and did not have any intension of promoting this as an actual wikipage. Later mathbudy, mathprof, micheal hardy and some other contributers joind the journey. Somebody even suggested this as an wiki article. Thank you for all your contributions. It looks like there is a fight between Slawomir and mathbudy. It is really ugly you fight for such a thing. I will delete my article soon. Now I know how wikipedia works though it was a bad experience, which really tarnish my name. Thank you all for your contributions. Please chat with me in contributors area. Uditanalin (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that's not the way wiki works. Once an article is published in mainspace it is no longer yours to delete. You can enter a Delete 'vote' or strike out your keep 'vote' if you made one. Note that strictly speaking they aren't votes, they are summaries of an editor's opinion.Greglocock (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the G7 request on this article, as multiple editors have made substantial contributions to the page. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - mere mentions in textbooks probably would not be enough for notability, but discussions or homework questions would be significant coverage. Has anyone checked the extensiveness of mentions of the functions? Bearian (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I contacted the author of that book and here what he says, "On page 248 of my book indeed the article Kalugampola, U. (2010), New approach to a generalized fractional integral, arXiv:1010.0742v1[math.CA] from the year 2010 is listed as an example for further reading, but I leave it up to the reader to judge about the value of this article." MathProff (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously. -- Taku (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Lean toward Delete, but I could be convinced otherwise. Seems to be used only in one paper and a few papers which refer to it, most not using that name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. It is traditional for the discover of a new concept to have his name attached, but not when he does it himself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.