225:; I did a search again for sources talking about it, but only found the author himself writing about it. I read his description again, and to make sure I understood it, implemented it in Matlab and ran some waveform and spectrum simulations, and verified that his technique is indeed pushing most of the energy into a very narrow band, but unfortunately that's just "carrier" energy, and the signal energy that carries the information, though very small now, still occupies the usual bandwidth. So the theory is very bogus, essentially a variation on small-deviation phase modulation; not completely unworkable, but also not what the author claims it to be, and not a good idea. It there were evidence of notability, it might still rate a mention in wikipedia, but there's none that I can find.
661:(from original nom) - I agree that the article is now much-improved in structure and content, and I disagree with the premise that the technique being nonsense is grounds for its deletion. I also agree that the refs are all on-topic. However, I still don't believe notability has been established; a couple of throwaway mentions in some trade publications might barely scrape past the letter of
369:– I don't object to deleting, but if we keep it, it needs to be based on sources. It is not our job as wikipedia editors to write debunkings of pseudo-science. So I've done a first-cut rewrite, all well sourced. Please take a look and tell us if you agree. I've thrown out most of what was there, even though as was pointed out above by Oli Filth, we agree with what it said.
681:
article on it. It seems clear enough to me that if someone reads about an idea that's going to revolutionize the world, and finds only a few mentions in lawsuits and trade rags, that they'll get the point that there's not much to it. If they want to dig further, they can ask their techie friends to help interpret the technical refs. That's enough.
436:
As the article clearly states (in the infobox), the VMSK claims are "in direct violation of the mathematical principles of digital communications discovered by Harry
Nyquist and Claude Shannon". Should Knowledge (XXG) refrain from reporting on bogus claims merely because they are nonsense? Should we
463:
You are making a category error. Ponzi schemes are not nonsense. They simply don't work. If someone wrote an article about a new type of Ponzi scheme that they claimed did work, that would be utter nonsense. This article is equivalent to someone writing about creating a working perpetual motion
320:
I agree that references exist. The point I was making was that anyone can get a paper (or a patent) published, that doesn't in itself make the subject notable. There are thousands of papers published every year; the overwhelming majority on subjects that never see the light of day again; we don't
127:
This topic is really just psuedoscience that has attracted very little attention other than a few comms practitioners who enjoy investigating crackpottery (I include myself in this category!). The terminology finds essentially zero usage outside a couple of obscure papers and Phil Karn's rebuttals
295:
notable, we would expect to find numerous discussions, articles and references on the subject. However, we don't. We have the creator's website, Phil Karn's rebuttals, a small handful of articles in trade publications from years ago, a handful of obscure failed companies that no-one's ever heard
680:
argument, I must say it's a hell of lot more notable than a lot of articles that I've proposed for deletion and lost on. I wouldn't mind seeing it deleted, but on the other hand, it doesn't hurt, if someone wants to look it up and find out whether it's a respectable idea or not, to have a short
305:
It is not clear to me where the boundary between notable and non-notable is drawn, but the "real" references are, although not numerous, certainly not non-existent, and to require that the sources themselves are also notable ("a few obscure papers") appears to be raising the bar.
629:
or PhDs in
Physics or Electrical Engineering are in a good position to evaluate the relevance of the cited articles. I don't know how non-specialists would even read many of the sources to evaluate their relevance. As for this being a
550:
I see seven references, numbered 1 through 7, and two external links. All appear on topic and relevant to me. Could you be more specific which of these have, according to you, absolutely nothing to do with the topic?
608:– VMSK is nonsense, but the article now represents that in a neutral sourced way. There are enough independent refs to support notability, and some not-independent refs, too. I think they're all "relevant".
195:
A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the
296:
of, and a few obscure papers that are largely uncited (the existing cites are just from the other papers in that Google
Scholar list!). I didn't know that it was mentioned on TV, though.
260:
120:
625:
Ok, this isn't going to win me many friends, but this article addresses a highly technical topic. Forgive me for saying this, but it's not clear to me that people other than
321:
consider those notable unless they've been taken up by the mainstream. I'm not suggesting that citation count is the be-all-and-end-all of notability, merely indicative.
343:
87:
82:
91:
74:
665:, but not the spirit, in my opinion. I've already commented on the papers. Therefore, I maintain that the article should still be deleted.
128:
on his personal website. Pretty much no-one (including experts in the field) will have heard of it, because it's such low-key nonsense.
573:
This is a classic case of irrelevantly citing a mountain of legitimate scientific publications to lend credibility to a crackpot theory.
552:
442:
205:, putting this info in that article would be doing that article an injustice, as the "techniques" espoused by the creators of VMSK have
307:
264:
17:
189:
Unfortunately, being a fringe theory doesn't mitigate the requirement for a subject to be notable in its own right. Quoting from
291:
Not sure if that was an argument for "keep". I think everyone agrees that the theories are bogus. However, if they were bogus
571:
No, I'm not going to explain why these legitimate publications have nothing to do with supporting the claims of the article.
78:
136:
709:
690:
669:
653:
617:
594:
560:
545:
514:
483:
450:
431:
401:
378:
358:
325:
315:
300:
286:
272:
251:
for good reasons since 25 November 2005. However, investors keep being deceived by companies making VMSK claims; see e.g.
234:
213:
184:
161:
143:
56:
677:
277:
Are you saying that based on these hits, the topic is notable, and that we should rewrite it from those sources? Keep?
724:
700:- is now a well written, neutral article with third party sources that establish notability. No good reason to delete.
634:
theory, which anyone can comment on, I don't see how it remotely satisfies that bizarre but valid criterion either. --
36:
244:
497:— I am not a subject-matter expert in this field, but it looks like it's reliably sourced to sufficiently make the
70:
62:
723:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
526:
Most of the sources have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. You may want to examine them more closely.--
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
556:
446:
311:
268:
132:
626:
248:
180:
239:
It is (or ought to be) well known that VMSK puts virtually all of the energy in the carrier; see e.g.
202:
705:
635:
576:
527:
465:
413:
190:
172:
686:
613:
508:
441:
because the claims of such schemes are utter nonsense that makes
Ricardo roll over in his grave?
374:
282:
230:
464:
machine. That would be utter nonsense, and yes, it should be deleted. Just as in this case.--
243:. Of course the claims of VMSK are bogus (just like recurrent claims by companies concerning a
353:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
176:
498:
252:
701:
666:
322:
297:
210:
158:
140:
662:
682:
609:
502:
370:
278:
226:
438:
395:
350:
50:
108:
388:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
240:
255:
The "promises" of VMSK were touted in an episode of the CNBC TV show
247:
achieving perfect data compression), and the article has been in
717:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
412:
Utter nonsense. Shannon is rolling over in his grave. --
154:
150:
115:
104:
100:
96:
393:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
175:, or merge with Minimum-Shift Keying and redirect
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
727:). No further edits should be made to this page.
139:(even though I agree with every word of it...).
135:, and the majority of the article content is
8:
344:list of Science-related deletion discussions
259:, aired on March 11, 2000. The term gets
342:: This debate has been included in the
157:with the summary "Try an AfD instead".
253:SEC litigation against AlphaComm, Inc.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
149:Note: This article was previously
24:
257:The Next Wave with Leonard Nimoy
1:
515:20:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
432:06:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
402:03:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
379:19:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
359:21:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
326:19:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
316:18:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
301:17:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
287:17:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
273:17:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
241:this relatively recent letter
235:23:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
214:14:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
185:14:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
162:14:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
144:14:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
710:16:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
691:21:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
670:20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
654:20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
618:19:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
595:20:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
561:11:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
546:03:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
484:20:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
451:11:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
245:magic compression algorithm
57:00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
744:
131:In summary, falls foul of
71:Very minimum-shift keying
63:Very minimum-shift keying
720:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
676:Well, risking a bit of
249:Category:Pseudoscience
261:more than a few hits
203:Minimum-shift keying
137:WP:Original research
678:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
263:on Google scholar.
44:The result was
404:
361:
347:
209:to do with MSK!
735:
722:
651:
648:
643:
640:
592:
589:
584:
581:
543:
540:
535:
532:
511:
505:
481:
478:
473:
470:
429:
426:
421:
418:
398:
392:
390:
356:
348:
338:
118:
112:
94:
53:
34:
743:
742:
738:
737:
736:
734:
733:
732:
731:
725:deletion review
718:
649:
644:
641:
636:
590:
585:
582:
577:
541:
536:
533:
528:
509:
503:
479:
474:
471:
466:
427:
422:
419:
414:
396:
386:
354:
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
741:
739:
730:
729:
713:
712:
694:
693:
673:
672:
656:
632:notable, bogus
620:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
566:
565:
564:
563:
518:
517:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
456:
455:
454:
453:
406:
405:
391:
383:
382:
381:
363:
362:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
289:
219:
218:
217:
216:
199:
165:
164:
153:, but tag was
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
740:
728:
726:
721:
715:
714:
711:
707:
703:
699:
696:
695:
692:
688:
684:
679:
675:
674:
671:
668:
664:
660:
657:
655:
652:
647:
639:
633:
628:
624:
621:
619:
615:
611:
607:
604:
603:
596:
593:
588:
580:
574:
570:
569:
568:
567:
562:
558:
554:
553:88.235.147.36
549:
548:
547:
544:
539:
531:
525:
522:
521:
520:
519:
516:
512:
506:
500:
496:
493:
492:
485:
482:
477:
469:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
452:
448:
444:
443:88.235.147.36
440:
435:
434:
433:
430:
425:
417:
411:
408:
407:
403:
400:
399:
389:
385:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
365:
364:
360:
357:
352:
345:
341:
337:
327:
324:
319:
318:
317:
313:
309:
304:
303:
302:
299:
294:
290:
288:
284:
280:
276:
275:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
237:
236:
232:
228:
224:
221:
220:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
192:
188:
187:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
166:
163:
160:
156:
152:
148:
147:
146:
145:
142:
138:
134:
133:WP:Notability
129:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
719:
716:
697:
658:
645:
637:
631:
622:
605:
586:
578:
572:
537:
529:
523:
494:
475:
467:
439:Ponzi scheme
423:
415:
409:
394:
387:
366:
339:
308:88.234.1.171
292:
265:88.234.1.171
256:
222:
206:
194:
168:
130:
126:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
177:Franciscrot
702:Gandalf61
667:Oli Filth
323:Oli Filth
298:Oli Filth
211:Oli Filth
191:WP:FRINGE
173:WP:FRINGE
159:Oli Filth
141:Oli Filth
683:Dicklyon
610:Dicklyon
504:MuZemike
371:Dicklyon
279:Dicklyon
227:Dicklyon
121:View log
659:Comment
650:umanoid
623:Comment
591:umanoid
542:umanoid
524:Comment
480:umanoid
437:delete
428:umanoid
397:MBisanz
367:Rewrite
351:the wub
207:nothing
201:As for
196:theory.
171:as per
155:removed
151:PRODded
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
499:WP:GNG
410:Delete
223:Delete
116:delete
92:delete
642:andom
583:andom
534:andom
472:andom
420:andom
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
706:talk
698:Keep
687:talk
663:WP:N
627:Hams
614:talk
606:Keep
557:talk
510:talk
495:Keep
447:talk
375:talk
355:"?!"
340:Note
312:talk
283:talk
269:talk
231:talk
181:talk
169:Keep
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
46:keep
349:--
346:.
293:and
193:: "
708:)
689:)
616:)
575:--
559:)
513:)
501:.
449:)
377:)
314:)
285:)
271:)
233:)
198:".
183:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
704:(
685:(
646:H
638:R
612:(
587:H
579:R
555:(
538:H
530:R
507:(
476:H
468:R
445:(
424:H
416:R
373:(
310:(
281:(
267:(
229:(
179:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.