675:"No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Knowledge. On the contrary, Knowledge welcomes experts. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Knowledge.
586:
in a single never-cited conference paper from 16 years ago is non-notable". What is the WP definition of 'non-notable'? I know that there must be a reference, and so there is. I did not know the requirement that the reference had to be cited; where in the WP policy do I read that? Nor did I know that the reference cannot be 16 years old; where do I read that? I suppose that this piece of information ("from 16 years ago") is not really relevant to your argument. If it is, please document it; if it is not, please omit it. Then you have this subtle distinction between saying and not saying something: "not
591:
peer-reviewed paper. It was reviewed and accepted prior to the conference by the conference committee. It has been discussed in not peer-reviewed papers, and I have talked to people who have read it, and I have mailed with people who have read my WP article. When you show me the WP policy that un-cited papers do not count, then you are free to delete the article. I think that you are mad at me, for reasons that has nothing to do with the ordinal fraction article, and you act accordingly. You are not checking every WP article for uncited references, which would otherwise be the case.
632:
created themselves that (b) has not been cited in others' peer-reviewed research or (c) generated discussion outside what appears to be a small group of people, it seems obvious that the article qualifies for deletion as both vanity and non-notability. If you can't see that, then I don't know what else to say. This is not your article being singled out for extraordinary attention; hundreds of articles a day are marked for deletion, either through the "prod" tag or the AfD process. In any case, even if
Stephen Johnson
650:
notations it seemed reasonable to spot-check some of your other contributions. And as
Paddles said, I don't control the other participants in this forum...doesn't their unanimous opposition tell you something? I admit that it is tiring to debate with you when you resort to sophistry, however. (e.g. I didn't say the reference was not notable because it was old, I said it was not notable because it was old
482:
personal reasons. Argument 3 was withdrawn by Steven himself in the note above. Argument 4 seems to be refuted by the comments on the talk page; some people did read the article with interest. Argument 5 tells nothing about whether this very article deserves a WP article. Ladies and
Gentlemen of the jury, my learned friend may be angry, but his case is weak.
517:) is still open (not yet established). Argument 4 is also not refuted - interest does not equal notability, no matter what notation you use. Arguments 2 and 5 appears to me to be the only one you have got correct. Finally, Steven speaks only for himself, not for any of the other commenters (except where they say "per Steven Johnson"). Are you able to give
626:"Many editors also believe that it is fair test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)."
481:
Well, now we have heard five arguments for deletion. 1: Vanity; 2: 1; 3: Originality; 4: Notability; 5: Not all published articles deserve a WP article. Let's look at them one by one. Argument 1 was withdrawn. Argument 2 has nothing to do with the case but merely documents that Steven is motivated by
469:
The main question here, I think, is not whether it is original research but whether it is notable enough to meet the bar for an encyclopedia article. (Determining whether it is original research in this case would require a judgement call assessing the reputability of those conference proceedings as
585:
to promote a nonstandard notation of his own invention". In extention to 'non-notable', which is by now your only remaining argument, you called it vanity, and you argued ad hominem ("I came across this article" &c). Now taking up your sole remaining argument: "a concept/neologism published only
548:
and so I don't emphasize it. I, myself, never used the original-research argument—it may be true, but I think it's not worth arguing when the notability argument is so strong. I pointed out your repeated original-notation offenses simply to provide background and to speak to your credibility, and
631:
Now: peer-reviewed sources are considered reliable, but non-peer-reviewed sources generally have less credibility/reliability, just as prominent news websites have more credibility/reliability than myspace pages. Given that the article in question was written by a person (a) about a concept they
405:, Knowledge "looked like a good place for me to tell the world about ordinal fractions", and admitted that "the concept of ordinal fractions is new and might be controversial" and "to my knowledge it is not taught anywhere." (Your personal charge of "edit warring" does not merit a response.)
703:
Ordinal fraction technology is notable, not for the first reason, but for the second: its particular importance or impact. Ordinal fraction notation has the same potential impact on database technology as the Arabic positional notation for numerals had on arithmetic. Writing Arabic numeral 102
649:
Bo, I'm not "mad at you", I simply have learned to mistrust your ability to follow
Knowledge guidelines. In exactly the same way that when I see a user upload one copyvio image I look to see if they have uploaded other copyvios, when I saw that you cannot resist inserting nonstandard personal
590:
and so I don't emphasize it". It is not clear to me what you mean by writing something without emphasizing it. I suppose it means that it should have been omitted. So all that remains of your argument is that the 1990-paper has not been cited. That, I think, is true: I know of no citation in a
419:
per original author's comments ("I was not aware of the policy against original research. Do you think that ordinal fractions belong to that category? It was invented (by me)...") Yes I do think it is original research - how did this one slip through the net for so long?
321:
and pizza sections are almost certainly neologisms. Ah, yes, the
Logical Conditions section is also verifiable, although "Addition" is usually "multiplication" (and) and "Multiplication" is a strange combination which I haven't seen before, but probably
450:
If it's been published in a book or a refereed scholarly journal before being put on
Knowledge, then it's not a violation of the policy against original research. Is this perhaps a borderline case? What is the nature of the publication?
521:
references for papers (in peer-reviewed journals) that cite your 1990 conference paper? These would lend more weight to your arguments for notability than anything else so far. To date I have seen no reason to change my delete vote.
366:
are not fulfilled, and the article is not about a person. StevenJ is fighting edit wars to monopolize several wikipedia articles. The pizza part of the article was inspired by the corresponding explanation in the introduction to
317:, with coauthors Edward Posner and Herbert Taylor. in 1977), in which a notation similar to that used in the Data Modelling section was used. However, I would have used "0", "1", and "*" instead of his "1", "2", and "0".). The
398:
information that was placed in any
Knowledge article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the
491:
Okay, I can assess the source: it's an uncited talk, and it doesn't avoid original research. It's also non-notable, because only one person has ever written about the concept; furthermore, I see no actual interest on
96:
to promote a nonstandard notation of his own invention. He did publish this notation, he claims, in a 1990 conference. However, I can find no usage for this terminology outside
Knowledge, and a search on the
539:
arguments that anyone can see through. My consistent point has been that a concept/neologism published only in a single never-cited conference paper from 16 years ago is non-notable, and that this is a
553:
about this particular article. The comment about not even all refereed journal papers being notable enough for WP was simply to pre-emptively address the specious argument that being published
636:
engaged in some sort of conflict with you, each person participating in the AfD discussion makes their own judgement on the merits; the nominator's opinion doesn't carry any extra strength.
614:"The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them."
544:
criterion for deletion. You have yet to address this. The fact that it is apparently a vanity article (which I never conceded) is additional motivation for deletion, but is not
401:. In any case, non-notability alone, regardless of whether the conflict of interest here qualifies it as a vanity page, should qualify this article for deletion. As you said on
157:
277:
per nom. I had my doubts on this article a while ago, but I didn't do
Stevenj's digging. A conference talk that nobody cites is still original research.
111:
I came across this article because we have had problems before with this user trying to promote personal nonstandard notations on
Knowledge. e.g. on
699:
A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact.
557:
somehow qualifies a thing as notable. From above, I can tell that all of this was clear to everyone else, but I wanted to answer for myself.
470:
a source.) There are zillions of articles published in excellent refereed journals every year, but not all of them deserve a WP article.
513:
meet the vanity criteria. My reading of Steven's comment on argument 3 is that the question of originality (whether the article violates
313:. The Data Modelling concept is verifiable (although non-notable). (That means, I've seen it before — in fact, I've written a paper (
704:
instead of saying 'one hundred and two' has the same benefit as writing the ordinal fraction 102 instead of saying 'X=1 and I=2'. The
101:
citation database turns up no one citing this publication. A further search for "ordinal fraction" on various databases, such as
17:
509:. As far as I can tell, argument 1 has not been withdrawn; Steven Johnson's comment suggests to me that he thinks the article
436:
496:, and even if there were, that wouldn't establish notability. Finally, since that one person is you, yes, it's vanity.
363:
164:
69:
63:
740:
36:
739:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
708:
had immense importance and impact. Ordinal fraction technology has potentially the same importance and impact.
383:
is from the 1990-article mentioned. If there is an article containing Arthur Rubin's results, we might merge.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
725:
712:
658:
640:
595:
561:
526:
500:
486:
474:
464:
455:
409:
387:
354:
338:
305:
293:
281:
269:
249:
226:
214:
202:
190:
173:
347:
493:
402:
335:
578:
393:
89:
680:
82:
692:
620:
424:
261:
52:
577:
arguments. I think you are. I am merely reading what you wrote: "This appears to be a non-notable
461:
452:
432:
460:
Oh ... a book of conference proceedings? Unrefereed? Does the policy say anything about that?
74:
118:
331:
186:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
604:
722:
705:
368:
266:
258:
223:
211:
709:
592:
582:
506:
483:
384:
290:
242:
160:
93:
59:
159:(see Talk), and some time after being rejected he tried to re-insert that notation in
668:
497:
428:
327:
278:
199:
112:
163:(twice, see Talk). He also tried to insert his own nonstandard redefinition of the
655:
637:
558:
523:
514:
471:
406:
302:
183:
170:
351:
574:
536:
235:
49:
376:
687:
vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is
372:
102:
733:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
98:
535:
Bo, you don't help your case by making personal attacks and
121:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
151:
573:Dear Steven. I am not making personal attacks or
743:). No further edits should be made to this page.
257:. Not notable and perhaps original research.
115:he tried to promote the nonstandard notation
8:
167:(see Talk, discussion of "involutary" DFT).
326:have some explanation in papers related to
315:Partitioning Files into Subfiles with Keys
130:
126:
120:
664:You answered my questions. Thank you.
234:- looks to me like original research.
105:turns up no usage of this neologism.
379:are old, but the obvious combination
7:
24:
88:This appears to be a non-notable
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
198:as, so far, unsubstantiated.
44:The result of the debate was
364:Knowledge: vanity guidelines
760:
165:discrete Fourier transform
152:{\displaystyle 1^{1/2}=-1}
182:– non-notable concept. --
736:Please do not modify it.
726:02:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
713:13:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
659:16:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
641:11:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
596:10:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
562:17:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
527:12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
501:07:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
487:06:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
475:23:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
465:23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
456:23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
410:16:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
388:15:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
355:01:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
339:16:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
306:15:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
294:11:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
282:04:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
270:23:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
250:21:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
227:18:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
215:17:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
203:16:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
191:15:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
174:15:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
348:Knowledge:Verifiability
603:Bo. Direct quote from
153:
494:Talk:Ordinal fraction
403:Talk:Ordinal fraction
350:and per nomination.
154:
119:
549:not as an argument
289:as per nomination.
691:Direct quote from
679:Direct quote from
667:Direct quote from
656:—Steven G. Johnson
619:Direct quote from
559:—Steven G. Johnson
472:—Steven G. Johnson
407:—Steven G. Johnson
171:—Steven G. Johnson
149:
441:
427:comment added by
188:
78:
751:
738:
652:and never cited.
440:
421:
381:ordinal fraction
362:The criteria in
264:
240:
187:
158:
156:
155:
150:
139:
138:
134:
83:Ordinal fraction
72:
55:
34:
759:
758:
754:
753:
752:
750:
749:
748:
747:
741:deletion review
734:
706:Arabic numerals
422:
369:vulgar fraction
262:
246:
236:
122:
117:
116:
86:
67:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
757:
755:
746:
745:
729:
728:
701:
700:
689:
688:
677:
676:
662:
661:
646:
645:
644:
643:
629:
628:
627:
617:
616:
615:
609:
608:
583:User:Bo Jacoby
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
505:Refutation to
479:
478:
477:
443:
442:
414:
413:
412:
357:
341:
308:
296:
284:
272:
252:
244:
229:
217:
205:
193:
161:Exponentiation
148:
145:
142:
137:
133:
129:
125:
99:Web of Science
94:User:Bo Jacoby
85:
80:
57:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
756:
744:
742:
737:
731:
730:
727:
724:
720:
717:
716:
715:
714:
711:
707:
698:
697:
696:
694:
693:WP:Notability
686:
685:
684:
682:
674:
673:
672:
670:
665:
660:
657:
653:
648:
647:
642:
639:
635:
630:
625:
624:
622:
621:WP:Notability
618:
613:
612:
611:
610:
606:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
594:
589:
584:
580:
576:
563:
560:
556:
552:
547:
543:
538:
534:
528:
525:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
503:
502:
499:
495:
490:
489:
488:
485:
480:
476:
473:
468:
467:
466:
463:
462:Michael Hardy
459:
458:
457:
454:
453:Michael Hardy
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
438:
434:
430:
426:
418:
415:
411:
408:
404:
400:
395:
391:
390:
389:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
365:
361:
358:
356:
353:
349:
345:
342:
340:
337:
333:
329:
328:Boolean Logic
325:
320:
316:
312:
309:
307:
304:
300:
297:
295:
292:
288:
285:
283:
280:
276:
273:
271:
268:
265:
260:
256:
253:
251:
248:
247:
241:
239:
233:
230:
228:
225:
221:
220:Strong delete
218:
216:
213:
209:
208:Strong delete
206:
204:
201:
197:
194:
192:
189:
185:
181:
178:
177:
176:
175:
172:
168:
166:
162:
146:
143:
140:
135:
131:
127:
123:
114:
113:Root of unity
110:
106:
104:
100:
95:
91:
84:
81:
79:
76:
71:
65:
61:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
735:
732:
718:
702:
690:
678:
666:
663:
651:
633:
587:
572:
554:
550:
545:
541:
518:
510:
423:— Preceding
416:
397:
380:
371:. The words
360:Don't Delete
359:
343:
332:Arthur Rubin
323:
318:
314:
310:
298:
286:
274:
254:
243:
237:
231:
222:per nom. --
219:
210:per nom. --
207:
195:
179:
169:
108:
107:
87:
45:
43:
31:
28:
581:created by
579:Vanity page
394:Vanity page
92:created by
90:Vanity page
721:per nom.--
542:sufficient
224:Zero sharp
212:Kicking222
75:2006-05-25
710:Bo Jacoby
681:WP:Vanity
605:WP:VANITY
593:Bo Jacoby
588:necessary
575:straw man
546:necessary
537:straw man
507:Bo Jacoby
484:Bo Jacoby
385:Bo Jacoby
301:per nom.
291:Gandalf61
68:at 05:09
555:anywhere
498:Melchoir
437:contribs
429:Captainj
425:unsigned
377:fraction
279:Melchoir
259:DarthVad
200:Tyrenius
638:Paddles
524:Paddles
373:ordinal
303:Paddles
184:Lambiam
719:Delete
669:WP:NOR
551:per se
417:Delete
399:author
344:Delete
336:(talk)
324:should
311:Delete
299:Delete
287:Delete
275:Delete
255:Delete
232:Delete
196:Delete
180:Delete
103:INSPEC
46:delete
515:WP:OR
352:Barno
330:. —
109:Note:
16:<
723:Peta
511:does
433:talk
375:and
346:per
319:name
238:Reyk
654:)
519:any
396:is
334:|
245:YO!
70:UTC
50:NSL
695::
683::
671::
634:is
623::
439:)
435:•
392:A
144:−
48:.
607::
431:(
267:r
263:e
147:1
141:=
136:2
132:/
128:1
124:1
77:)
73:(
66:)
64:C
62:+
60:T
58:(
54:E
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.