Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On a conjecture concerning the petersen graph Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/On_a_conjecture_concerning_the_petersen_graph

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. Michig (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a conjecture concerning the petersen graph (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)

I prodded this, but the prod was removed several days later by an IP editor with no explanation and no improvement. The prod rationale was: "A recent research paper with absolutely zero citations in Google scholar. Without secondary sources that describe its results in nontrivial detail, it does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards". The article creator has also spammed this material to Petersen graph, Graph factorization, and Michael D. Plummer. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge anything relevant to Petersen graph and delete as an unlikely search term and non-notable concept. Stalwart111 07:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 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 WP:GNG. 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. ‎Dricherby (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should say I have no objection if expert (or more informed, at least) opinion is that there is nothing worth merging. Your explanation seems sound and I'm happy to accept that the sum total of merge-worthy content may well be zero. Stalwart111 10:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd describe myself as "informed", rather than "expert" on this topic. I'm a theoretical computer scientist so I'm confident in my understanding of the mathematics in this paper but I'd certainly defer to an actual graph theorist's opinion of its importance. If it is merge-worthy, it would probably be a sentence or two at most. Dricherby (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I know David (the nom) has a pretty good understanding of this stuff, too, so there's something to be said for his judgement in bringing this to AFD in the first place. Stalwart111 12:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Dricherby (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This paper seems to have no citations in other works and the only web refs I could find are pointers to this paper or an associated conference presentation. The work seems non-notable, or at least it is WP:TOOSOON. The work itself doesn't prove the conjecture, only a special (albeit useful) case. The new editor creating this article also created one other article, on Michael D. Plummer, also an author on the paper, suggesting that the editor may have some association to this paper or its authors. With the paper falling below general notability guidelines, and no other secondary works discussing this proof, this article also fails general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. Given no secondary references or citations found, even verifiability is in question, so a merge is not recommended at this time. --Mark viking (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see nothing worth merging. —Mark Dominus (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2013 (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.