Talk:Cheung–Marks theorem

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 May 2010. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Notability[edit]

The initial suggestion to delete was right based on what was posted. I hope the revisions make clear the importance of this theorem. A high level counter intuitive example has been added to immediately reveal the importance of the theorem. More references have been added with quotes. SlimDeli May 14, 2010

Unfortunately, at Wikipedia, "notability" does not mean "interesting". It has quite a specific meaning (see the policy at WP:NOTABILITY), which essentially boils down to "has it been noted by non-trivial independent sources?" Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 10:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheung-Marks is, indeed, notable. Respectfully, the theorem is not only interesting in its counter intuitive mathematical/engineering result, but historically because corrects an error in Shannon's classic 1948 paper. (Possibly the only error.) SlimDeli (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is still merely "interesting". Have you read the Wikipedia policy on notability that I linked to above? We need to answer questions such as "Has the original paper been widely cited?" and "Is the Cheung-Marks theorem discussed in a non-trivial manner in multiple, independent sources?". Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 20:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this discussion is confusing. First, notable, then interesting, then notable again. The Cheung-Marks theorem has been cited quite a bit in "multiple, independent sources." Oli_Filth (Great name!): What more evidence do you need? Citations? Quotes? Do all these belong in the article? (Answer: of course not). Wikipedia needs to be careful on posting trivia, but this is not that. WasabiJones (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, citations are exactly what we need. No-one is claiming that this article is trivia, but we can't just take your word for it that the subject is notable. If you believe the article should be kept, please raise your concerns on the deletion discussion, which can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheung-Marks theorem. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 09:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Careful.. applying these criteria, 90% of all math articles on WP would be non-notable, and therefore deletable. This is, of course, an absurd notion. linas (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]