Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shokrollahi digraph

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. J04n(talk page) 01:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shokrollahi digraph

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

Freshly self-published original research - Altenmann >t 07:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Is there a speedy criterion for such things? The guy clearly misappropriated wikipedia as part of his personal webspace: he linked this wikipedia page from his website. - Altenmann >t 07:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a case of original research to me WP:OR and is thus disqualified from speedy deletion per reason 3 of WP:NOTCSD. We need to go through AfD. --Mark viking (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search shows 5 non-Wikipedia hits for this topic, all at Mr. Shokrollahi's web site. With no independent sources and indeed, no peer-reviewed publications, this is original research WP:OR and fails general notability guidelines WP:GNG. Thus the article should be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- No evidence of notability. a13ean (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2013 (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.