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.
WP:OR: All this stub is based on 4 primary sources that have the same first author
WP:ORPHAN: All incoming links from the main space are in "See also" sections or in a stand-alone list. Apparrently, the only reason of these links is de-orphanization.
D.Lazard (
talk)
14:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would lightly support deletion. On Google Scholar, the "Geometry of vector sheaves" book has been cited 137 times, although the majority appear to be self-citations or citations of the form "for work on this related topic, see the book Geometry of vector sheaves". As far as I can tell (but without confidence), the topic is not of major research interest.
Gumshoe2 (
talk)
14:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't want to say anything definitive yet, but a first pass through the citations to both books has an anomalously high level of
dubious sources:
MDPI journals, unreviewed preprints, etc. In any case, this stub has been functionally abandoned since 2009, and the creator has not edited since 2010, so working on it doesn't seem to be anyone's top priority.
XOR'easter (
talk)
17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete This looks like a real topic, with publications over decades. But as far as I can tell, all the work I've seen comprises primary sources, or secondary sources written by the primary authors. As far as I can tell there are no in-depth independent reliable sources for the topic, so an article would need original research to construct it. Hence delete, but happy to reconsider if substantial independent sources are found. --{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}18:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or light merge: In the current state, it doesn’t pass the notability. Also, 1998 is too recent in mathematics and I couldn’t find any evidence that this is a very active research topic (if active, 1998 is still ok). It’s a bit unfortunate since the idea seems interesting. In fact, the abstract
[1] mentions the sheaf-theoretic aspect and that’s not new and so maybe it is possible to mention the book in some way in some other articles; basically, there are many approaches to differential geometry and there might be a way to mention the book, although we need to assess the significance of the work. —-
Taku (
talk)
05:36, 8 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.