Testwiki:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Boubaker polynomials

AfDs for this article:

The given page title was invalid or had an inter-language or inter-wiki prefix.

It may contain one or more characters that cannot be used in titles.

Template:La (delete) – (View log)

The above-captioned article was created and, most importantly, deleted numerous times on a number of wikis (e.g. fr it, sv, de, pt) some time last year (non-notable). It also was the subject of massive sockpuppetry and spamming, particularly on :fr (see fr:Wikipedia:Vandalisme de longue durée/Mmbmmmbm for a detailed list and background story).
The article was lately re-pushed by Template:U, who pretended to be editing from China. Well, a CU showed that it is not really the case, and the user was banned (again) both here and on fr. Then there was the off-wiki legal threat yesterday against the French admin who dealt with the AfD request. If this article gets deleted, I think it would help everyone that re-creation be blocked for the foreseeable future (this has been going on for a year now).

• Notability: H-index of Boubaker polynomials is about 2. Scholar has 17 occurences, 7 of which are actual peer-reviewed articles (the rest look like poster abstracts). All of them are the work of either one of two authors, K Boubaker or KB ben Mahmoud (both from Tunis U.). I looked into Scopus and found that these papers were cited only once or twice, presumably as a form of circular reference.

There has also been a submission to Planet maths with one of the references being... Wikipedia. The matter was reported to project maths but after initial acknowlegement that there were some papers out there the discussion forked into the massive sockpuppettry issue. Thus, I'm putting this back onto the AfD track.
This is not about the reality of these polynomials (which exist by the truckload) but rather the aggressive self-promotion of otherwise non-noted, non particularly notable work. Oops forgot to sign, thx A.R.Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Manually fixed nomination about 15 minutes ago. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Proposal: Trim, and merge to Chebyshev polynomials. Concur that they appear not to be used by anyone other than Boubaker. (They differ from the other similar polynomials, such as Lucas polynomials, by being linear combinations of the same Chebyshev polynomials, with only a scale factor of 2 to content with. Lucas polynomials would have to have an imaginary argument if they were to correspond.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete is acceptable, but merge and protect redirect seems a reasonable alternative. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete : it has been a long vandalism on wikipedia fr. Frankly, the notability is very very weak. All references point to this single author/website which is very active in communicating. I don't think that anyone has really written on these polynoms except this guy and a few of his friends. So delete in my opinion. Poppy (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete : no notability whatsoever. A show of vanity. Gede (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't usually take part in his kind of thing here -tho I did with the 2nd nomination (where an old vandal copiously attacked/defamed me under various accounts...)-, but this case is particular. It involves advertising/vandalizing/heavy-sockpuppeting/etc. on several Wikipedias. It's been going on for almost 2 years and even escalated to RL threats recently (tho there could be other occurences I'm not aware of). The article itself has no notability and will most probably be deleted, but due to the many aggravatings activities of the author, I'd like ask the page (and other probable titles) to be protected against recreation too. DarkoNeko x 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Not to Delete If it is matter of notability, the presence of 13 hits in OEIS and Planet maths are relevant. One just ahs not to Say about notabilityTwice2222 (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC) — Twice2222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Waow ! First edition on Wikipedia and it happens to touch Boubaker polynomials. Welcome, Mr Twice2222. French Tourist (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The scholarly articles seem more than sufficient to demonstrate notability for me. Also, I'm against a merge into Chebyshev polynomials...that page is already too long. That said, I think this current page is pretty bad...lots of equations and not much prose. That needs to change. Cazort (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This is more difficult a choice than can be thought at first glance. It is useful to read again the comments made when the article was recreated and discussed at Project Mathematics. There was nobody to stand up strongly for it, but there were a few participants to underline (rightly) that these polynomials have been used in articles published in peer-reviewed journals. e.g. :"One of the necessary conditions for a paper to be accepted in a peer-reviewed journal is for one's peers to be sufficiently interested in the subject matter so as to believe it merits wide dissemination. (...) I don't see why this article should be in danger of being deleted.". The question might hence be : should Wikipedia blindly include everything that has been mentioned in peer-reviewed journals ? I think not, but this is a rather difficult question. I don't modify my position since previous nomination : accepting such blatant self-promotion puts Wikipedia at risk. French Tourist (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I am strongly against Arthur Rubin's proposal to merge with Chebyshev polynomials. While it is not completely obvious to determine whether Boubaker polynomials should be or not included in WP, if the answer happens to be "yes include them", they have not to be included in an important article, which would be a violation of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT : it's important not to give a casual reader of Chebyshev polynomials a hint that Boubaker polynomials are in some way at the same scale of importance than say Lucas polynomials. Hierarchising information is the main task in building encyclopedic content. French Tourist (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the (correct) impression that Boubaker polynomials are a trivial modification of Chebyshev polynomials gives undue weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I wrote the passage quoted by French Tourist above. I do not myself have any connection to or even any interest in Boubaker polynomials. (I have edited the article, but all of my edits involved reformatting the references, in particular making sure that all authors' names appeared in each reference.) I know relatively little about the sock-puppetry issues, but if anything that seems to be a point in my favor since I think that those issues are quite distinct from this AfD. To answer French Tourist's question: yes, I think that any topic in the mathematical sciences that is cited by at least 10 different papers in peer-reviewed journals has sufficient notability for wikipedia. (More precisely I am less uncomfortable with this statement than with its negation.) I don't see what is gained by deleting this article. Moreover, I completely agree that including this material in the article on Chebyshev polynomials would be giving the topic undue weight. Plclark (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I am retracting the above "weak keep" recommendation. I now feel that the present circumstances are so unusual so as to not be well-covered by general policy discussions. I still do think that it would be possible to have an article on a concept that most qualified mathematicians agree is a trivial variant on another mathematical concept, provided that the variant has seemed useful to practitioners in a different field. (For instance the mathematical content of the Hardy-Weinberg law is simply $(p+q{)}^2=p^2+2pq+q^2$.) But I think there is something strange (and possibly deceptive) going on in the Boubaker polynomial related publications. Plclark (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Hardy–Weinberg law does not say ONLY that. It also says the relevant Markov chain converges to equilibrium in just one step. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Weak keep Keep The notability standards are not intended to judge whether the scholarly work is worthwhile, just whether it is mentioned sufficiently often and specifically enough in reliable sources. For mathematics articles, 10 articles in peer reviewed journals is usually considered sufficient. Even if they are just a trivial modification of Chebyshev polynomials, the fact that so many referees and editors have agreed to publish the material is what we should be considering, not our own viewpoint on the worthiness of the mathematics or on the conduct of its authors. We do not and should not care whether this is good scholarly work; we should only concern ourselves with whether reliable sources have judged it to be worthy of publishing. As an example of a trivial modification that actually has some scholarly dignity, see fundamental pair of periods which is very little more than graphing SL(2,Z) from a strict point of view. We do not have the duty or the responsibility to judge the merit of the original research; we only have the duty of organizing the judgements of the journal editors and textbook authors. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Ten articles in peer-reviewed journals would normally be sufficient notability, but they're all by Boubaker himself, and Google scholar only finds 7, according to the nominator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment As we have been lied to several times about the authorship of these papers, it does seem believable that the papers themselves were published under false pretenses. I have therefore changed from Keep to Weak Keep. 10 independent, peer reviewed articles, published in reliable, scholarly journals without the likelihood of fraud are clearly sufficient to establish notability of a mathematical concept, no matter who the authors or what the name of the concept. However, it is no longer clear that this is the case. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment Looking over the bibliography, WT:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination)#Reference list, I have managed to do cursory verification of enough sources from enough respectable journals. I read through a few of the articles and while they don't strike me as nobel prize work, they also do not strike me as fraud or trickery, etc. I think we can assume that (some of) the articles cited are just fine. For me, there are enough significant coverage in independently edited and published reliable sources to satisfy the notability guideline. JackSchmidt (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Hidden begin Mr JackSmith, as you are the single voter to clearly honestly and independently take position: (10 independent, peer reviewed articles, published in reliable, scholarly journals without the likelihood of fraud are clearly sufficient to establish notability of a mathematical concept) , and in refernce to your own confirmation : we give you the scoop of th 30 and not 10 independent, peer reviewed articles -take your time to verify each one , one by one...!!!<ad by your honour...none dare lying to you...>

1. " ENHANCEMENT OF PYROLYSIS SPRAY PERFORMANCE USING THERMAL TIME-RESPONSE TO PRECURSOR UNIFORM DEPOSITION ", European Physical Journal-Applied Physics, EPJAP , Vol. 37 pp.105-109 (2007).

2. " A CONTINUOUS SOLUTION TO HEAT EQUATION USING COMBINED DIRICHLET-NEWMAN BOUNDARY CONDITIONS - CASE OF SPRAY PYROLYSIS TECHNIQUE DEPOSITED NON-UNIFORM LAYER ", Journal of Energy heat and Mass transfer, Vol. 29(1) pp. 13-25 (2007).

3. " A STURM-LIOUVILLE SHAPED CHARACTERISTIC DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION AS A GUIDE TO ESTAB-LISH A QUASI-POLYNOMIAL EXPRESSION TO THE BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", Journal of Differential Equations and C.P. Vol. 2, pp. 117-133 (2007).

4. " ON MODIFIED BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS: SOME DIFFERENTIAL AND ANALYTICAL PROPERTIES OF THE NEW POLYNOMIALS ISSUED FROM AN ATTEMPT FOR SOLVING BI-VARIED HEAT EQUATION ", Journal of Trends in Applied Science Research, Vol. 2(6) pp. 540-544 (2007).

5. " THE BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS, A NEW FUNCTION CLASS FOR SOLVING BI-VARIED SECOND ORDER DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS ", F. E. Journal of Applied Mathematics, Vol.31(3) pp. 299 - 320 (2008).

6. " ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ORDINARY GENERATING FUNCTION AND A CHRISTOFFEL-DARBOUX TYPE FIRST-ORDER DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION FOR THE HEAT EQUATION RELATED BOUBAKER-TURKI POLYNOMIALS ", Journal of Differential Equations and C.P. Vol. 1 pp. 51-66 (2008).

7. “ A SOLUTION TO BLOCH NMR FLOW EQUATIONS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF HOMODYNAMIC FUNCTIONS OF BLOOD FLOW SYSTEM USING M-BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", International Journal of Current Applied Physics, Vol. 9 (1), pp. 278-283 (2009).

8. " HEAT TRANSFER SRAY MODEL: AN IMPROVED THERMAL – TIME RESPONSE TO UNIFORM LAYER DEPOSIT USING BESSEL AND BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", International Journal of Current Applied Physics, Volume 9, Issue 3, May 2009, Pages 622-624

9. " AN ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THE HEAT TRANSFER EQUATION IN A MODEL OF PYROLYSIS SPRAY USING 4q-ORDER m-BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", Int. Journal of Heat and Technology, Vol.26(1) pp. 49-53 (2008).

10. " ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOMOGENEOUS CHARACTERISTIC DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION FOR THE APPLIED PHYSICS CANONICAL FORMULATIONS-RELATED BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", Journal of Analysis and Computation, Accepted, Vol. 4(2) In Press (2008).

11. " INVESTIGATION OF THERMAL DIFFUSIVITY-MICROHARDNESS CORRELATION EXTENDED TO SURFACE-NITRURED STEEL USING BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS EXPANSION ", Modern Physics Letters B, Volume: 22, Issue: 29 (2008) pp. 2893 – 2907

12. " A BOUBAKER-TURKI POLYNOMIALS SOLUTION TO PANCREATIC ISLET BLOOD FLOW BIOPHYSICAL EQUATIONS IN THE CASE OF A PRESET MONITORED SPATIAL ROTATING FIELD", Research & Reviews in BioSciences ٍVolume 2, (1)pp. 78-81 (2008).

13. " ESTABLISHMENT OF A GENERATING FUNCTION AND A CHEBYSHEV DEPENDENT INHOMOGENEOUS SECOND ORDER DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION FOR THE HEAT EQUATION RELATED m-BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", International Journal of Applications and Applied Mathematics (AAM) , Vol. 3, No. 2 (December 2008) pp. 329 – 336

14. " A NEW POLYNOMIAL SEQUENCE AS A GUIDE TO NUMERICAL SOLUTIONS FOR APPLIED-PHYSICS-RELATED PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS UNDER DIRICHLET-NEWMAN-TYPE EXOGENOUS BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ", Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations NMPDE, DOI: 10.1002/num.20374, Accepted: 2 April , Published Online: 10 Jul, 008 (2008).

15. " A NEW ANALYTIC EXPRESSION AS A GUIDE TO ESTABLISH A CHARACTERISTIC DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION TO THE HEAT EQUATION-RELATED BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", International Journal of Applied Mathematics , Vol.21 No. 2 pp. 171-177 (2008).

16. " A BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS SOLUTION TO HEAT EQUATION FOR MONITORING A3 POINT EVOLUTION DURING RESISTANCE SPOT WELDING ", International Journal of Heat and Technology, 26(2) (2008) pp. 141-146.

17. "A DYNAMICAL MODEL FOR INVESTIGATION OF A3 POINT MAXIMAL SPATIAL EVOLUTION DURING RESISTANCE SPOT WELDING USING BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS", European Physical Journal-Applied Physic, EPJAP , Vol. 44, 317-322 (2008)

18. " NEW TERNARY COMPOUNDS STOECHIOMETRY-LINKED THERMAL BEHAVIOUR OPTIMISATION USING BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Accepted: 18 September (2008); DOI:10.1016/j.jallcom.2008.09.148

19. " STUDY OF TEMPERATURE 3D PROFILE DURING WELD HEATING PHASE USING BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS EXPANSION ", Thermochimica acta, Volume 482, Issues 1-2, (15 January 2009) 8-11

20. "MORPHOLOGICAL AND THERMAL PROPERTIES OF -SnS2 SPRAYED FILMS USING BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS EXPANSION", Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Accepted: 2 October (2008).

22. "LIMIT AND UNIQUENESS OF THE BOUBAKER-ZHAO POLYNOMIALS SINGLE IMAGINARY ROOT SEQUENCE", International Journal of Mathematics and Computation Vol. 1, No. N09, (2008) 13–16

23. " ESTABLISHMENT OF A GENERATING FUNCTION AND A CHEBYSHEV-LIKE DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION FOR THE HEAT EQUATION RELATED M-BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", Bulletin of Pure and Applied Mathematics Accepted: 28 July (2008) To appear in Vol. 3, No.1, June 2009.

24. " THE OPTOTHERMAL EXPANSIVITY: A BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS EXPANSION-RELATED PAPRAMETER FOR OTIMIZING PV-T HYBRID SOLAR CELLS FUNCTIONAL MATERIALS", Functional Materials Letter Accepted: 30 October (2008).

25. " EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL COOLING VELOCITY PROFILE INSIDE LASER WELDED METALS USING KEYHOLE APPROXIMATION AND BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS EXPANSION ", Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry , Accepted Jan. 2009, Ref: No. JTAC-D-08-00021R1

26. " A SOLUTION THE HEAT TRANSFER EQUATION INSIDE HYDROGEN CRYOGENIC VESSELS USING BOUBAKER-ZHAO POLYNOMIALS ", Cryogenics, Paper N° CRYOGENICS-D-08-00142, Accepted (2008).

27. " SOME NEW PROPERTIES OF THE APPLIED-PHYSICS RELATED BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS , Journal of Differential Equations and C.P. Volume 1 (2009) pp.7-19.

28. " THE 3D AMLOUK-BOUBAKER EXPANSIVITY-ENERGY GAP-VICKERS HARDNESS ABACUS: A NEW TOOL FOR OTIMIZING SEMICONDUCTOR THIN FILM MATERIALS", Materials Letters Accepted: Jan 21 (2009).[1]

29. " ON THE EARLIEST DEFINITION OF THE BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS IN THE PAPER: ENHANCEMENT OF PYROLYSIS SPRAY DISPOSAL PERFORMANCE USING THERMAL TIME-RESPONSE TO PRECURSOR UNIFORM DEPOSITION (COMMENT)", European Physical Journal-Applied Physic, EPJAP , Accepted: Jan 19(2009).[2]

30. " LEGENDRE, BESSEL AND BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS THEORETICAL EXPRESSIONS OF LOW TEMPERATURE PROFILE IN A PYROLYSIS SPRAY MODEL: CASE OF GAUSSIAN DEPOSITED LAYER ", Modern Physics Letters B, Accepted: Dec.29 (2008).

• • Comment User Arthur Rubin repeated twice "but they're all by Boubaker himself", it is not the matter of this 'Boubaker' but of the polynomials ! let's hope User Arthur Rubin was only not-informed. For his clearence, can he answer to the question: what about the following ????
    • , it is not the matter of this 'Boubaker' but of the polynomials. Indeed. the polynomial that this "Boubaker" desesperatly tries to make us believe that they are known and revelvant. Even tho he has to create most of the "proof" of that supposed fact himself. DarkoNeko x 09:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Neil J. A. Sloane, Triangle read by rows of coefficients of Boubaker polynomial B_n(x) in order of decreasing exponentsA138034

Roger L. Bagula and Gary Adamson, Triangle of coefficients of Recursive Polynomials for Boubaker polynomials, OEIS (Encyclopedia of Integer SequencesA137276

Roger L. Bagula, Triangle of coefficients of Boubaker recursive polynomials with even powers transformed as x->Sqrt[y]A137289 Neil J. A. Sloane and R. J. Mathar, Irregular triangle read by rows of coefficients of Boubaker polynomial B_n(x) in order of decreasing exponents A135936

S. Slama. A Boubaker Polynomials Solution to Heat Equation for Monitoring A3 Point Evolution During Resistance Spot Welding,. International Journal of Heat and Technology [ISSN: 0392-8764, by EDIZIONI ETS] Volume 26(2) (2008) pages:141-146.

Roger L. Bagula, Differentiation of:A135929 Triangle read by rows: row n gives coefficients of Differential Boubaker polynomial P(x,n) in order of decreasing exponents, A136255

A. Bannour, Triangle read by rows: row n gives coefficients of the modified Boubaker polynomial mB_n(X) in order of decreasing exponents, OEIS (Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences), A138476A138476

Roger L. Bagula, Integral form of A135929 :Triangle read by rows: row n gives coefficients of Integral form of Boubaker polynomial B_n(x) in order of decreasing exponentsA136256

J. Ganouchi. A attempt to solve the heat transfer equation in a model of pyrolysis spray using 4q-order m-Boubaker polynomials. International Journal of Heat and Technology [ISSN: 0392-8764, by EDIZIONI ETS] Volume: 26 (2008) pages: 49-53.

Ting Gang-Zhao, B. Ben Mahmoud, M. A. Toumi, O. P. Faromika, M. Dada, O. B. Awojoyogbe, J. Magnuson and F. Lin (2009). Some new Properties of the Applied-physics Related Boubaker Polynomials. Differential Equations and Control Processes 1. Ting ganZ (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC) — Ting ganZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • • Comment This is the key point to agree on in my opinion. If peer-reviewed respectable journals are ok with Boubaker's embarassing self-promotion, then why are we not ok with recording it? The wikipedia article is very clear about the shameless self-promotion involved and stands as a public place where everyone can come to laugh and marvel at such a man and such a collection of academics that refereed and published it. Note that Boubaker did not publish these papers (nor even author *all* of them, just most), so that the judgement of their notability is not made by him, but by the journals. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment. I was reporting the nominator's view that all the references were by Boubaker. However, thinking it over, we should not use a count of peer-reviewed papers as evidence of notability, but only of accuracy. As a sometime-reviewer myself, I wouldn't consider the question of whether a concept is notable in considering whether to accept a paper about it. The number of different authors who are not coauthors with Boubaker might be an indication of notability, which this concept fails miserably. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Comment Rubin's comment is squarely against wikipedia policy, and an AfD does not seem to be the appropriate place for a policy discussion. Moreover it is also decidedly against my experience: I believe the job of a referee is to weigh in on the notability and importance of the work presented in the paper. Most instructions to referees contain explicit directives to this effect, and many point out that this is even more important than verifying the correctness of the results presented. In my opinion it would be a major and unwise change of course to attempt to overrule determinations of notability by peer (i.e., subject area expert) reviewers. Plclark (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Comment I disagree. The reviewer's job is not to ascertain notability but to (i) check the quality of the work and (ii) ascertain its originality. Notability is irrelevant, there's about 800 thousand scientific articles published every year in the Life Sciences alone, I doubt every single one of them is notable: what matters is the impact factor (which, for Boubaker et al., is very low). Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 08:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Comment User Arthur Rubin confirms he 'was reporting the nominator's view' Ok, but his own opinion was Delete is acceptable ?! The nominator him self does not deny notability but evokes other problems ...Now the question stands fot this user: the polynomials are, according to WP rules and to the number of contributors -from America ,china, Romania,Rwanda , Uzbezkistan, Nigeria ... - NOTABLE or NOT ?? his answer to this question will really be a key for the debate ...

• Keep according to WP rules What is strange in this discussion is that the AFD establisher Popo le chien is himself admitting the NOTABLITY, So what is the issue??

In fact, if there are problems linked to sockpuppetry, racism, xenophobia, extra-wiki problems, they might be solved away from this frame.

Any one can ‘say ‘ these polynomials are not notable , but WIKIPEDIA has an expressive, written and clear rule for that!! (see the passage from http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_Notability of special functions)

Examples Polynomials, Mathematical identities etc. The questions to ask (for NOTABILITY) are:

---

1. Have they been the main subject of (at least two) published papers, or chapters in a book, or an entire book about this sequence?

2. Are they cited in MathWorld or PlanetMath ?

3. Are they cited in in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS)?

4. Do they have a demonstrated (and/or) published expression?

An affirmative answer to one these questions indicates that the polynomials or mathematical identities are notable for Wikipedia to have an article about it.

---

So, any contributer should first answer to the simple question: Do these polynomials respond to these (above 1. 2. 3. &4) written rule of notability ??

As long as the AFD is about notability, any extra debate should be held out of this scientific field. i e. for merging, the article is enough long ans self-standing, and merging it with Chebyshev (because there is a link) will lead to merging Dickson , Lucas an tens of other polynomials. Since the debate is about notability, this issue in not adequate ( i.e. if notability is not established, how to merge ??) Ting ganZ (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

The following section which explains the links to other polynomials has been erased from the article (by user:Arthur Rubin,24h earlier with the mention WRONG !!!)

Links to other polynomials

• Like Lucas polynomials , Dickson polynomials and Fibonacci polynomials , Boubaker polynomials are related to Chebyshev polynomials T_n and U_n by:

$B_n(2x)=\frac{4x}{n}\frac{d}{dx}{T}_n(x)-2T_n(x)$

$B_n(2x)=-2T_n(x)+4x{U}_{n-1}(x)$

• The Boubaker polynomials are also related to the Dickson polynomials D_n by:

$B_{n+1}(x)B_{n+j}(x)-B_{n+j+1}(x)B_n(x)=(3x^2+4)D_{n+1}(x)$

$B_n\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)=D_n(x)+4D_{n-1}(x)$

The same user DELETED yestrday a part of other pages that refers to the article. In such way, users will be wrongly informed. Moreover,discrediting OEIS as a source of notability, although one could make a good case for absence from OEIS being a good source for absence of notability is equivalent to discrediting eminent and world-wide known and awarded scientists who worked on boubaker polynomials (i.e. Neil J. A. Sloane,A. Bannour... see refernces above)

user:Arthur Rubin is doing his best to discretise the Boubaker polynomials (up to descretise internationnaly recognized institutions and to recall???? a discussion at WT:MATH where OEIS was discredited ), that is his right, but things must be carried out in respect to WP rules and scientist's reputation. Ting ganZ (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Template:Hidden end

• Comment The issue of the behavior of the sockpuppets is quite serious, but they have been blocked. Their continued disruptive editing on the article is grounds for a community ban from this topic. However, protecting the article from conflict of interests and disruptive editing is very different from deleting it. Also, the inclusion criteria on frwiki and enwiki are different, and frwiki need not follow our decision at all (from my brief observations, frwiki consensus is clear to delete). JackSchmidt (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment those notability criteria were added to the notability page by an anonymous contributor, and do not reflect any discussion. In fact, I recall a discussion at WT:MATH where OEIS specifically was discredited as a source of notability, although one could make a good case for absence from OEIS being a good source for absence of notability. MathWorld isn't even considered evidence of accuracy. PlanetMath is a Wiki; for the most part, it's named in guidelines becasue it has a compatable GDFL with Wikipedia, so we may copy material from it. Generally, a peer-reviewed book on the subject might be considered evidence of notability, but chapters of peer-reviewed books, and even a large number of (unreferenced) papers on the subject, should rationally not be so considered. But neither the list of claimed notability criteria nor this comment should be on this page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. These "Boubaker polynomials" B(2x) are nothing more than the trivial linear combination 4U_n(x) − 6T_n(x) of Chebyshev polynomials. Having an article on these is like having an article titled "Finknottle function" about 4sin(x) − 6cos(x). Mathscinet gives exactly one hit: a paper by Boubaker.r.e.b. (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment : In the section removed by user:Arthur Rubin (see above); User R.e.b. can see he was mis-informed: Dickson polynomials are linked to Chebychev by a simple 2-digit formula!D_n(2x) =2T_n(x) !! so :Having an article on Dickson polynomials is also like having an article titled "Finknottle function" ?? . Oppositely, a notable Polynomial MUST have links to other notable that is trivial Ting ganZ (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per R.e.b. Normally I would think a mathematical subject with published papers by three separate parties (Boubaker himself, Slama, and Ganouchi; I don't count the OEIS entries) would be enough for a keep. But in this case we appear to be party to an attempt by Boubaker to promote himself inappropriately as the discoverer of something that he didn't discover. WP:NPOV says that this is too minor a contribution to be included in an article on as important and broadly studied a topic as Chebyshev polynomial, but it also says that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be party to this kind of self-promotion: we should report neutrally on what contribution is made to mathematics by these polynomials. Or in other words, we should say that they are only a trivial combination of Chebyshev polynomials and leave it at that. But a one-sentence article saying that these polynomials are 4U-6T, renamed in a self-promoting way by Boubaker, wouldn't make a satisfactory encyclopedia article, so I think it's best in this case just to delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Due to the rather special circumstances around this article, I underline that in this discussion, everything should be fact-checked. I see you consider as significant the papers of 2008 by Slama and Ganouchi (correct spelling seems to be Ghanouchi). I could not find on the web the tables of contents of International Journal of Heat and Technology for 2008 - by some unhappy circumstance, they have not been refreshed since 2007 on their website [3]. We should not forget that socks of Mr B. editing the article had willingly "forgotten" the name of Boubaker in at least one author list, as results from some independant fact-checking by Template:U [4]. Hence I fear your naive assertion according to which we know until now papers published by three "independent parties" should not be used as a decision basis unless previously thoroughly checked. Assuming WP:GOODFAITH from KB sockpuppets would not be very reasonable. (As far as I could search myself, Slama coauthored very recently a paper with Boubaker : [5] I have no access to its contents, but reading a line of its bibliography through Google, it seems that the 2008 paper to be found pp. 49-53 in International Journal of Heat Transfer and Technology is coauthored by J. Ghanouchi, H. Labiadh and K. Boubaker). French Tourist (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • You have a good point. Since we have seen such a strong willingness to use sockpuppets here, how are we to believe that the authors of these supposedly independent papers are also not sockpuppets? That only strengthens my feeling that we should delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete : I agree with Popo le Chien and French Tourist. DocteurCosmos (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The AFD is about Notability of a mathematic item, not about the notion of Notability (which can be discussed elsewhere)

Some hits could give answer to this :

---To the question :“Have they been the main subject of (at least two) published papers, or chapters in a book, or an entire book about this sequence?

The answer is :

 In Science-direct (20 hits, only peer reviewed publications) [6]

 In Google Scholar (17 hits, only peer reviewed publications, oppositely to 7 as it was wrongly confirmed by the AFD nominator Popo_Le_Chien) ) (20 hits, only peer reviewed publications) [7]

---To the question: Are they cited in MathWorld or PlanetMath ? The answer is :

 In PlanetMath (3 pages, with no-mention of WIKEPEDIA !! , oppositely to what ‘informed’ the AFD nominator Popo_Le_Chien) [8]

---To the question :Are they cited in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS)? The answer is :

 17 hits for Dickson Polynomials [9]

 13 hits for Boubaker Polynomials [10]

---To the question :Do they have a demonstrated (and/or) published expression?

The answer is : Yes see the article itself. Gilles mecrire (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC) — Gilles mecrire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Template:Hidden end

• Comment. This page is becoming a sock-puppets fest (User:Ting ganZ, user:Twice2222, user:Gilles mecrire that last one being a reference to fr:user:GilleC, a french sysop that that guy harassed in RL recently, and more to come probably) like the 2nd nomination was. This is unsightly. DarkoNeko x 09:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. (Should it be possible to semi-protect the page?) First of all, here are a few explanations. I am not very familiar with the various procedures here on en:, as my mother-wiki is fr:. I mostly come here from time to time for interwikis or light corrections, as part of my activities of creation of categories on fr:. I will not therefore express myself in favor or against the deletion of the article. However, I have seen things here I feel the need to comment.
  1. The fact that IRL, somebody writing from Tunisia has launched what can be interpreted as harassment and smear campaign against me, involving e-mails to professional contacts of mine, has in fact nothing to do with the conservation or deletion of this article. Those are two distinct things. That is what I have already written on the french Administrators' noticeboard. This is a matter of content, and we are not speaking here about the behaviour of this person, but about the content of the article.
  2. In the same line of thought, the "sock show" Template:U has mentionned should not be taken into account, unless it is clear that it somehow gives a false impression of notability of these polynomials. I mean the multiplication of sock-puppets has to be ignored and gives no clue about the real notability of the subject of the article. But it gives a bad impression about the article creator, and that impression should have no influence on the final result. Let's focus on the facts that are exposed, not on the person who writes them.
  3. Every polynomial family is a linear combination of Chebyshev polynomial. This is normal, they form a basis. This should not be generally regarded as a criterium for non-notability. However, in this case, the linear combination is very trivial.
  4. As a physicist, I am not a specialist in mathematics. I cannot therefore express a legitimate opinion on the intrinsic quality of the published papers cited in reference. I just notice that most of them are co-written by the inventor of this family. Peer-reviewed publications in theory accept papers that expose something new. The authors may name such or such algorithm or tool (as these polynomials are) as they like. As far as I know, this is not taken into account when the article is reviewed. Therefore, articles co-written by the inventor of these polynomials give in fact, to my mind, no clue about the real notability of the family amongst the mathematical community. This is not the case of papers written by anybody outside the inventor's team. This leads me to only keep three references: the sequences published in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, and the two articles published in the International Journal of Heat & Technology in 2008 (the table of contents of which I have not found inline), by Ganouchi and Slama (references to K.B. Ben Mahmoud being in fact references to Karim Boubaker Ben Mahmoud, Ben meaning "son" in arabic). For information, Ganouchi has written a book prefaced by K. Boubaker. And S. Slama works at the ENIT, and has already had Mr. Boubaker as "tutor".

  I am sorry for having developped so longly on the subject. Please make whatever you want from my remarks ;-) GillesC (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  After careful checking by Template:U, it appears that the only references to published papers which are not co-signed by Boubaker (under the names Boubaker or Ben Mahmoud) are the computations reported on the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. GillesC (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment User:GillesC repeats what was said about TRIVIALIY

if in his mind the relations:

$B_n(2x)=\frac{4x}{n}\frac{d}{dx}{T}_n(x)-2T_n(x)$

$B_n(2x)=-2T_n(x)+4x{U}_{n-1}(x)$

are TRIVIAL

What about the relation that defines Dickson Polinomials

$D_n(2x)=2T_n(x)$??? !!!!!

One must be aware about what one says; otherwise it will be felt, that (in good faith) anythig is Ok for banning this page???

Edwarddd (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC) — Edwarddd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• not to Delete If any opposite vote is banned or blocked , it won't be a discussion.

Acoording to the whole discussion and the deep advise of User GillesC, two major issues are confirmed:

... The polynomial first pretender is a bad guy (as long as he never tried to prove the opposite)

... The polynomials are notable according to WP rules.

As the vocation of WP is not to punish evil, to associate the bad acts of a person who did not contribute to this page, to the outcome of this page is sipmly abusive. PS. If any opposite vote is banned or blocked , it won't be a discussion.

Edwarddd (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment — Edwarddd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment All references to peer-reviewed articles quoted in Boubaker polynomials have now been checked (thanks the bibliography found in this article [11]). Note that all of them are papers coauthored by Mr Boubaker, (some of them under the signature "K.B. Ben Mahmoud"). French Tourist (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per results of both previous AfDs. And salt this time, too. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as having no independent coverage in the literature. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete The deep and long Refcheck showed that this Boubaker is not a Professor, but a simple meaningful engineer, Wikipedia is not the place for shuch marginal and low leveled persons' work. Onlythat (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC) — Onlythat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Per French Tourist. Nothing more than a few publications with the same author, no notability that could be confirmed by an independent source. Though my opinion is already towards delete, it is clearly becoming a strong delete when I consider the threats against some admins and the extreme pushing that we can see on various editions (most notably fr and it). Clem23 (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• • CommentWould you change your mind if there are 30 peer-reviewed sources involving more than 30 authors from more than 11 countries ??? Just say Yes or No to save time?

• • • Comment (This is not a vote)

I helped by shifting contested references to 'Additional reading' and refreshing the remaining ones in a neutral way, with no-link to the controversial fellows 'Boubaker'and 'Ben Mahmoud'. The new version will help the community concentrating on the AFD purpose according to Wikpedia rules.Jonespoll (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC) — Jonespoll (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment. Template:User (yet another single purpose account) blanked this discussion three times, and has been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment (aimed mostly at admins following this page, not relevant for the AfD). This user name is typical from the obsessions of a major vandal, known on :fr as MS and who has already been active on Boubaker polynomials pages - more info at meta:Vandalism reports/BogaertB. French Tourist (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not to Delete notable, and satisfying the notability rulesJonnyHallid (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)— JonnyHallid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

PS. To Administrators: User Arthur Rubin (see above) has vandalised the project page Boubaker Polynomials twice under the reason ( Dickson Polynomials are the chebychev ones!!!???? ) WP can verify that these two Polynomials are different and even HAVE DIFFERENT PAGES IN WIKPEDIA !!!, is this user serious ???. Please prevent this UNFOUNDED vandalismJonnyHallid (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• I explained on the talk page. Those "Dickson polynomials" are not properly described (Dickson polynomials have two arguments), and are, in fact, Chebychev polynomials. If you want to add the corresponding formula for Chebychev polynomials, I'd consider it irreleant and non-notable, but it wouldn't be wrong. If someone would refactor these rants which about the proposed article, not about the deletion arguments, to the talk page of this AfD or the talk page of the article, I would appreciate it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sir Arthur Rubin, you had changed the concerned page on awrong fundament (from your own sayings)  :

                          Dickson polynomials are Chebyshev ones !!!!

Despite You were told they HAVE DIFFERENT PAGES AT WIKIPEDIA !!! (they are historically and Mathematically different) When yo do change on this basis , when other contributors try to correct it, it is VANDALISM as the message you sent me :

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Boubaker polynomials.... may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Now , you say publicly : If you want to add ..., I'd consider it irreleant and non-notabl?????e Why this threat??? please do not block me , it is not a war, and blocking is a sign of failure... not fairJonnyHallid (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly a sock puppet of an editor banned for sock puppet abuse. That being said, if you were to add a statement describing combinations of the Boubaker polynomials as Chebychev polynomials, I'd tag it as non-notable and off-topic, but I wouldn't summarily delete. The statement you and the sock drawer have added (without a source, but sources for equations are not always available for mathematical articles) is mathematically incorrect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sir, sometimes sockpuppetry is caused by blocking abuse. This is not the case, you are not abusing and we are normal contriubutors on a shared server, and who can transmit to you any information (address telephoe ..etc) but as the edition 'war' (as you told me in the warning on the discussion page) is not balanced, you have the right to block and revert , we do not, we finally agree with you , Dickson's are Chebyshev's. But do you alllow us a restructuration of the reference section (with no change to the remaining etxt) that would, for sure, help the community to have a consensus on this page ?JonnyHallid (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If the sockpuppetry were caused by blocking abuse, the correct remedy would be to appeal the block from the primary account of the blocked user, not bypassing the block. I'm calling the latest set "sock puppets" only by behavior, not checking IP addresses. (In fact, I cannot check IP addresses.)

Restructuring the reference sentence, without adding unsourced material or removing references for sourced material, might be helpful, provided the article author names are not removed. (Sloan, in the context, is acting as a cateloger, not a scientist. Referring to him by name in the body of the article, and referring to more than one of his sequences, is a mistake.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Quote: These "are a polynomial sequence established in an attempt to solve a bi-variate heat equation in a particular case of one-dimensional applied physics model". Without getting bogged down in equations, was the attempt successful, and how notable is the particular case? Have there been any spin-offs from this attempt that are of import? Answers in English please, not in mathematical jargon. Peridon (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not to Delete Enough notable, but Link to other polynomials must be developed.

In answer to the question of Peridon  : “ Have the Boubaker polynomials been any spin-offs from this attempt that are of import? Answers in English please, not in mathematical jargon. (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hits in the Scientific domain gave these applications (with explanation in simple English) :

--Heat transfer spray model: using Bessel and Boubaker polynomials (a thermal device)

--Temperature 3D profiling in welds (which means drawing temperature variation)

--A Boubaker polynomials (BPES)-related protocol for thin films ( a method for studying the characteristics of the sprayed materials)

--Sulfur/selenium substitution effects using (BPES) (a physical-chemical study)

--A solution to Bloch NMR flow equations using m-Boubaker polynomials (Medical application)

--Properties of β-SnS2 sprayed thin films using Boubaker polynomials (Material science)

--Stoichiometry-linked thermal behavior optimisation using Boubaker polynomials(a physical-chemical study)

There are also some Mathematical studies.Etaittunpe (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment If they are not Notable, at least they have notable applications …

• Query So are there references for these applications? Would the other polynomials people are talking about not give the same results? Peridon (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Commentsee the list of 30 peer-reviewed sources above (in hidden area) there are pages volumes ... a simple web hit reach leads to... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etaittunpe (talk • contribs) — Etaittunpe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Not to Delete a work elaborated by Sloan, Bannour, Bagula, Z.Liu Wen, an such scientists, and so many hits in Science Direct , Scopus, Elsevier,Sicience direct wit authors from different continents is evidently notable.Hilberts (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)— Hilberts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Substantial Error : (To User Arthur Rubin : you claimed: Sloan, in the context, is acting as a cateloger, not a scientist. Referring to him by name in the body of the article, and referring to more than one of his sequences, is a mistake.)

In the last line of the referred work it is clearly written that Sloan is the AUTHOR and not cateloger!!! (a bit of respect to scientist works, please ). So the mistake is user Arthur Rubin’s (none is perfect!) Hilberts (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Warning: to EN:WP administrators!! at 22:20, 12 February 2009 French Tourist (who is also an active WP FRENCH ) DELETED a part of EN:WP NOTABILTY Rules lastly edited by Michael Hardy22:02, 30 November 2008

So, in order to diminish the notability of a simple item; an old recognized Vandal (see his historics) IS ALLOWED TO ERASE A WP:EN RULE ind descretise a whole international institution  ?????? with a reason evoked 5 times in the last AFD : (edited by an Arab country issued account ) ????

This irregular action is strangely endorsed by Arthur Rubin who answers to him:

Good work ( French Tourist ) !!! . For an integer sequence, I'd say it not appearing in OEIS is definitive that it is not notable, but that's just me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And so, OEIS is DEFINITIVELY banned (as likely in Freach WP) as a not notable source just for a purpose  !!!!

It seems, as usual, that FrenchWP users are going to impose their rules to En:WP (see the last AFD where the arrival of clem and his group has deviated the regularly begun discussion.) what is the opinion of JackSchmidt?? Hilberts (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment For those who would be puzzled by this last intervention by Template:U and find it a bit difficult to understand what it is about, my recent intervention (a section removal) on Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) is to be found here, the explanation I gave and Arthur Rubin's answer are to be found there. French Tourist (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. Three of the four provisions of the deleted guideline have been specificially rejected at WIkipedia Talk:WikiProject Math. I assume the remain provision has equally bad provenance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and enhance found an extra independent source :[12] by Matte M:Topics on polynomials/Non Orthogonal Polynomials.

( I am also an Arab country issued account user , watching this thing from the beginning,) but please consider my opinion on the Notability, not on the 'boubaker' person.Georgesy (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment To honest WP:EN administrators : 4 of the tagged "from single-purpose account " are each second (unavoidably created) voice of users who are now INDEFNITELY blocked by the EN:WP , guess why? because their original IP address belongs to a very range belonging to an Arab country denominated expressively and PROUDLY by The FR:French Tourist!!! [13]

Hence, a whole people is BANNED, <Range of 10 000 000 IPs!!!, like what happened in FrencWP> even those with old accounts...

For a discussion of Notability it become a discussion on rules of Noatbility , then on a person Notability, and finally on a person's RACE Notability ... it is amazing ...It must be called:

the FrenchTourist-Arthur Rubin One way Discussion (is a FRENCh:WP adminstrator !!! [14] with a long vandalism past (see the hisotrics linked to his French page [15] and see what he was considered to be !!!)

Or :

the Fr:WP conquest on En:WP (see last AFD) ... honest WP:EN administrators, be aware!!! Hilberts (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Template:Hidden end

• Delete. All peer-reviewed sources are by Boubaker himself. That's not sufficiently notable for me. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • CommentWould you change your mind if there are 30 peer-reviewed sources involving more than 30 authors from more than 11 countries ??? Just say Yes or No to save time?Etaittunpe (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I can't speak for Jitse, but I would be very likely to change my mind if there were a set of papers that mention these polynomials nontrivially and that have many authors all of whom could be shown to be established mathematicians not equal to Boubaker/Ben Mahmoud. But his willingness to use multiple names on the papers we already know about, and the willingness of single-purpose accounts here to use multiple names in this AfD in support of his work, make me disinclined to trust new evidence in the form of new papers by or coauthored by previously unknown authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • If the 30 peer-reviewed sources are all (co)written by Boubaker then my opinion would not change. I need sources independent of Boubaker to change my opinion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Slight merge to Chebyshev polynomials or delete. I opposed speedy deletion when this most recent iteration of the mess started up. However, that was based on the existence of apparently independent references. As has been shown here, Boubaker quite frequently makes use of pseudonyms; hence, I don't see how I can naively accept those references as independent any longer. Without the references, this is just a variation of Chebyshev polynomials without any assertion of importance. I leave it up to others to decide what, if any content, is useful to merge, but we should not retain this without evidence of independent references; Boubaker's own actions make it quite difficult to establish this. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per all above. Resolute 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or mention briefly in Chebyshev polynomials I'm not a mathematician, but I am interested in the subject (I also read murder mysteries...). When I asked above for a clear English answer to my query, I got the following (copied to here from hidden area as it is non-abusive) (line spacing condensed):

"Hits in the Scientific domain gave these applications (with explanation in simple English) : --Heat transfer spray model: using Bessel and Boubaker polynomials (a thermal device) --Temperature 3D profiling in welds (which means drawing temperature variation) --A Boubaker polynomials (BPES)-related protocol for thin films ( a method for studying the characteristics of the sprayed materials) --Sulfur/selenium substitution effects using (BPES) (a physical-chemical study) --A solution to Bloch NMR flow equations using m-Boubaker polynomials (Medical application) --Properties of β-SnS2 sprayed thin films using Boubaker polynomials (Material science) --Stoichiometry-linked thermal behavior optimisation using Boubaker polynomials(a physical-chemical study) There are also some Mathematical studies.Etaittunpe (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC) o Comment If they are not Notable, at least they have notable applications …" I then posted:

• "Query So are there references for these applications? Would the other polynomials people are talking about not give the same results? Peridon (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)"

So far there has been no response; I therefore conclude that references are not available. This is the opinion of a non-mathematician who can hardly be accused of bias in the matter. The applications given do look reasonably notable to me. But without independent, reliable, and verifiable references they count for nothing, I'm afraid. My apologies to those who may resent an outsider sticking an oar in. I have often found that an outsider's view can be of use (if only by causing amusement at his ignorance...). Peridon (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have received a response from Hilberts giving a list of scientific papers mentioning these polynomials. I am not going to copy the list to here - it may already be in a hidden section. It is available for inspection on my talk page, and will remain there until this discussion is concluded. The papers are mostly not internet linked and I have no access to them. I leave it to those with more knowledge of these things - or better access to them. I have still not had a response from anyone to whether the other polynomials would do the same job. Peridon (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. About 26 on the 35 references can be found in 10 sec' on google, and mention Karem Boubaker as author or co-author. In the last 9, 4 have been written by the same person, "Roger Lee Bagula", 1 by Neil J. A. Sloane (who is co-author of one of the four Bagula's paper which is just a copy of one of Boubaker's entry), 1 by A. Bannour (co author of number [6] with KB), and the last three are not, for now, findable directly on the net (but look in the title very similar to Boubaker's paper). Rhadamante (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Also note that many of the Bagula and Sloane ones are not papers at all. They are entries in OEIS, another online encyclopedia that I don't think we should be using to infer notability (it accepts basically anything that is mathematically correct regardless of its significance). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just worked out that Bagula has an Erdős number of 3 if he's co-authored with Sloane who on the Wikipedia article about him is given as being a 2. (I do know about Erdős numbers.) Bagula appears to be a real person and quite a polymath. If not, he's very well constructed. If I knew more maths, I could do a story based on this lot. I'd love to know what's behind all the acrimony and so on. Peridon (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hum. Note they are not papers co-written or written by Sloane (it'is Hilbert's presentation of theese entries that made me beleive it), but juste entries on OEIS maintained by N. J. A. Sloane on OEIS, which is a strong difference. Rhadamante (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well. at least we're getting the picture a bit clearer - for me at least. Never knew Maths could get so exciting. It's getting like music and religion, isn't it? Peridon (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. There's a discussion going on in this AfD's talk page about this list of publications. Seemingly, they all fall into three categories: (1) papers that are definitely by Boubaker, with various co-authors, (2) papers that might be by Boubaker but we're not sure because we can't find enough online information about them and the sockpuppet who gave us the list of papers didn't include authors, and (3) non-papers (OEIS entries). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Rhadamante has added names to the list on my talk page, and has boldened Boubaker's name in its various forms. I have quite a lot of dealing with people with Arabic names. and it is sometimes difficult to work out which is the first and which the last name (in English terms, that is). That is the reason for the name appearing differently in different places. It is not a reason for any of the alleged sockpuppetry that has gone on. Peridon (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, as the notability of this family of polynomials cannot be verified by independent sources. No merge as this would represent undue weight. Cenarium (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, same reasons. Zetud (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete because it has been established that these polynomials are not notable (no independent non-trivial coverage); and salt to prevent further disruption. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per r.e.b. This subject doesn't seem notable to me. After having looked through the first few pages of hits from google, the discussion of these polynomials seems to mostly be a wiki-phenomenon. Thenub314 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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.