Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filtrator

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 October 2.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Sandstein 07:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filtrator

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

The only relevant google scholar hits are to a paper published this year in the International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, which is the paper referenced in the article. The only citations to this work are self-citations. MathSciNet has never heard of the term "filtrator", nor of the paper about them, nor indeed of its author. It may be that one day filtrators become some standard part of order theory that many people study, and thus worthy of an encyclopedia article. But today is not that day. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons outlined above, together with the apparent COI. (There may also be issues with the sourcing aside from these, but were the topic to become notable this would presumably be addressed as well.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:TOOSOON. I tried Google Scholar but as with the nominator's experience on MathSciNet could only find Porton's own works using this term or citing his work. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term seems to be the invention of Victor Porton and there is no evidence that anyone else is using it. On a side note, it's interesting that the paper given as a source in turn cites WP three times.--RDBury (talk) 01:58, 31 January 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.