Talk:Multiple orthogonal polynomials

Why the notability tag?

@Onel5969 I don't understand why you put a notability tag in the article and what it is supposed to mean. I have given a source from a classic book by an expert on orthogonal polynomials, is this not enough? (Mourad Ismail is even mentioned in the introduction of the article orthogonal polynomials).--Tensorproduct (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No, that simply shows that it exists. You need coverage from several sources to show it is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

So how many sources do I need? I have added a second one.--Tensorproduct (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Since you didn't respond to my question I pinged you again. Another question, why do you write on your page that "I also don’t have problems with... articles with a single source." This completely contradicts what you wrote above to me.

If it is really the rule, that there must be at least two sources, why is this not written explicitly? That is strange and I have seen many non-science articles that have only one source and sometimes just a link to a bad website. Obviously the book which I cited is an excellent source since it was published by the University of Cambridge. And it is not original research when it's published in a book.--Tensorproduct (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It's difficult to respond when you do not know there's been a question asked. And you conveniently left out the next sentence on my userpage: "As long as the source is good enough to pass WP:VERIFY, and as long as the article subject either pass WP:GNG or one of the SNG’s." Which this did not. And it's not hard and fast, because it varies, depending on the quality of the source. For instance, if an article was only sourced with two sources, and those two sources were in-depth coverage in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, that would suffice. But if it was mediocre coverage from Goupstate.com and animenetwork, that would not be enough. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969: can you elaborate a) why the source is not good enough to pass WP:VERIFY and b) the articles subject does not pass WP:GNG? Regarding a) I think a mathematics book by professor printed by a world-leading university is a much more quality source than any newspaper article. It's read and edited by experts unlike articles written by journalists. b) I think the point listed on WP:GNG are fulfilled:

"Presumed": obviously fulfilled in such a mathematics topic.

"Significant coverage": full definition in detail is given.

"Reliable": editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation is given

"Soiurce": the source is a secondary source and there exist many more

"Independent of the subject": obviously also given.

So I don't see which point is not fulfilled.--Tensorproduct (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Never said the source was not good enough to pass VERIFY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)