- 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 speedy keep. Whether this is a bad faith nomination or just a badly informed one, the discussion makes clear that the nomination rationale is mistaken. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ree group (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)
G3:Blatant hoax Qfmd (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is another Chihiro. We've got a legitimate mathematical concept that doesn't meet notability and is sourced by a wide variety of nonexistent print sources just to give it a name. Qfmd (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's even been edited almost-exclusively by one user. This page has only stayed up for the same reasons Chihiro did: most Wikipedians don't want to go through advanced mathematics. Qfmd (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — Qfmd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Question - what exactly is your issue with the article? Notability? I don't understand how the references listed are not satisfactory, but then again, I am completely oblivious to advanced mathematics.. until further clarification, (unclear) keep. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 03:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, and warn Qfmd (talk · contribs) not to engage in disruptive behavior. The nomination makes false claims; for example, several of the article's references are available online (and demonstrate that the term has indeed been used in actual mathematical research over several decades), and the existence of most other sources can be verified e.g. via the DOI links. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No evidence whatsoever has been offered that this is a hoax in the style of Chihiro. In that case, most of the references were made up, and the remaining one or two could not verify the eponym. But this article has loads of actual references (of exceptionally high quality) that actually do use the term "Ree group". Also, I think a checkuser might be in order on the nominator. The original User:Wjxb was blocked along with a sockpuppet based on checkuser evidence. Now we have a "new" user who is immediately drawing comparisons with this deleted hoax article. Something doesn't smell right. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2014 (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.