Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadel vanishing theorem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep‎. UtherSRG (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadel vanishing theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Needs more of a review for notability. UtherSRG (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. I don’t think a rationale for the deletion is given (that the review is needed is reasonable but is not a reason). As for the notability, the references and further reading given in the article seem enough (further reading can still be used to establish the notability if not to justify statements in the article). Needless to say, you can also find additional refs by just Googling. —- Taku (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. MathSciNet has plenty of hits for "Nadel" "vanishing theorem" including seven with both phrases in their titles. I think there is a clear case for WP:GNG notability. Also, we don't take articles to AfD to ask others to review their notability; we take them to AfD when we have reason to believe they are non-notable. UtherSRG, what is that reason? The article had plenty of relevant looking sources at nomination time. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No valid deletion rationale given, and a literature search finds plenty of sources on the topic, so it's hard to see why a deletion debate is the proper way to discuss what to do about it. To be clear, it does need work, since it combines the typical obscurity of an advanced-math stub with an awkwardness that feels like the prose was translated from another language. (For example, Nadel vanishing theorem for analytic. For analytic what?) But deletion is not prose cleanup. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per all above. jp×g🗯️ 17:47, 23 July 2024 (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.