The result was no consensus. Bu I think that on the basis on this discussion a merger would not be opposed by many. Sandstein 12:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell not notable. The fact that this duality does not have a proper name 10 year after the first publication, and that that publication has only gathered 43 citations should be an indication that its not.TR 10:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC) TR 10:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - leaving aside whether this is notable, there are no citations in the article (and haven't been for nearly 2 years). The article as it now is fails to give the general reader any kind of idea what the concept in question is, or even what the words used to describe it (compactification? blowing-up k points?). If it's to be kept it needs a lot of explanation. And citations, of course. Let's delete it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]