Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 May 2
2011 May 4 >

3 May 2011[edit]

  • Boubaker polynomials – Speedy endorse; enough of this, if a non-sock wants to come along and request this then we can look at it anew. – Stifle (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Boubaker polynomials (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As per the XFD, this page was criticised for Notability purposes and lack of sourcing. the proposed version [1]is now containing more than 25 third-party, verifiable and independent source (Encyclopedies, Books, Acadimic and peer reviewed Journals)i.e., in ref 8 [2], The authors, Eminent Professor Paul Barry et al. Website presents as Chapter 6: (p 23): The Boubaker Polynomials... In i.e. Reference 15 [3] , Professor A. Yildirim Homepage presents (page 40) the boubaker polynomials as a tool for solving nonlinear science problems... and so on ...

The Matter is hence mainly to verify sourcing patterns, not discussing the scientific level, exactness or so, and if done, restore the page. Rirunmot (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Endorse . As it is, the new version seems to be enough sourced. The references 1-6, 8,9, 11-18 can be easily monitored. The reference to OEIS should be reformatted. --Dariocuccio (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This user has made no contributions to the project, besides trying to get this article restored. There is a long history of sockpuppetry connected to the article. See Ozob's post below Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The SPA also falsely claims to have reviewer rights. The userpage was probably copied from other user. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the closure was correct. However, I am not qualified to judge whether the draft article at User:Rirunmot/User:Rirunmot/sandbox is sufficient to warrant re-creation using that draft - it might be an idea to discuss this at WikiProjecy Mathematic's Talk Page and get a consensus on that issue. If the consensus is in agreement with you about the sourcing being adequate, reliable and independent, I'd have no objection to the draft version being moved to article space PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to [4], once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline..., so the closure was indeed correct, a long time ago. Now one has just to verify sourcing. --Rirunmot (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Yes!! The problem is here the lack of notability as stated by Ozob, so ask for deletion or keeping on this basis! Now the page is sourced or not!!, then you can suggest what you want. --Rirunmot (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmbmmmbm. Ozob (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck the comments of Dariocuccio and Frerejak, now confirmed in the SPI as socks of Rirunmot. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep. No idea about the deleted version, but it could not be the version here [5]. The sources are verifiable and the first one is a printed Encyclopedia. A reference is found [here], can anyone verify the link??--Frerejak (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a link to an electronic journal. Probably not relevant --Rirunmot (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This user has made few contributions to the project, besides trying to get this article restored. To address the substance of the post, the "printed Encylopedia" (published by Nova Publishers) does not really stand up to any kind of scrutiny. As with many publications in mathematics, one needs to check the quality of the sources. There are many academic publishers that are little more than self-publishing papermills. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I verfied that Nova Publishers is a peer reviewed encyclopedic and academic press. Nevertheless let's drop it! what about the remaining 20 references ?? --Frerejak (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Nova's pretty clearly bogus. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two parts to this. The trivial part (which I suspect is a WP:SNOW) is to analyse the original closure. Since it was closed according to the consensus without procedural anomaly, I duly endorse it. The substantive part is the question of whether the userspace version is ready for the mainspace. There's an attempt (above) to import drama from fr.wiki and it.wiki onto en.wiki, which I deplore and disregard. I'm satisfied that this is a good faith attempt to create an article about Boubaker polynomials and that the sources pass a casual inspection, so I think it's appropriate move to mainspace, but this should be without prejudice to a subsequent, thorough interrogation of the sources at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oops! the link to verify is : [[6]] --Frerejak (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with S Marshall ,move to mainspace and maintain verification will give a fair outcome. --Frerejak (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am forced to agree with S Marshall, rather against my own personal preference. Rirunmot's revision stands up to a casual inspection. Some of the references in the article are actually in decent journals, although most are not—see my remark above about Nova Publishers. I have done a Google scholar test, and there seem to be enough citations in decent places to justify an article—somewhat to my surprise and chagrin. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why forced and chagrin ?! ... If notable then Ok. If not notable then also Ok. Is there another problem?? --Rirunmot (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'll vote my conscience at the DRV. But you can't force me to like the outcome. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is honesty and fair. But seeing the extent of your investment in this subject <AFD and its related pages>, it was just a simple question : Is there a hidden problem with that (other than Referencing) ?? Perhaps your answer will help. Thanks.--Rirunmot (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been discussions about the mathematical suitability of this content (on the now-deleted Talk:Boubaker polynomials. But these arguments are somehow less firmly-rooted in policy. They're probably something that will be argued in more detail at the next AfD. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But this problem now is bybassed: These polynomials (according to references) are used in several applied physics fields as Cryogenics, Biology,System Dynamics ,NonLinear Processes,Approximation Theory ,Thermodynamics, Mechanics,Hydrology , Molecular Dynamics ,Thermo-Physics , Manifolds , Functional Analysis and more, by scientists from tens of countries,so no worry about mathematical suitability. You seem to be an expert, so your vote will be determinent. --Rirunmot (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above Google scholar test, I get 11 English language hits on MathSciNet for Boubaker polynomials. (This is up from 1 at the last AfD.) All but one of these have "Boubaker polynomials" in the title. The journals aren't really the best, but most of these are MR reviewed, so they clearly aren't junk. This should clearly be "good enough" to put your copy into mainspace. It's probably good enough to override any future AfD. But given the behavioral problems of the article's past editors, I foresee that it's going to be very difficult to achieve and maintain an article that meets our usual standards (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). But that's really a separate issue from the question of existence. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, the question of existence and notability is clearly solved. Besides that none of the opposed voters or contributors to the M_Project addressed that question or proved/claimed non-notabilty, just some notes about some other odd contributors. One can just refine the text, remove doubtful or non-verifiable references and the case will be closed.--Rirunmot (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: It may not be clear to non-mathematicians, but the so-called "Boubaker polynomials" are nothing more than a linear combination of Chebyshev polynomials. They've been promoted quite heavily by their creator, but they're devoid of content beside that already present in the Chebyshev polynomials. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if the problem here is just the level of the sourcing (see DRW start),nothing else, the problem of link with Chebyshev has been already addressed in 4 references in the page. In fact Dickson Polynomials D(x)are related to Chebyshev T(x) through a formula: D(2x)=0.5T(x) (trivial??), meanwhile Dickson polynomials exist, are notable and used.. Existence of a polynomial lies on some properties, 5 or 6, all verified in a reference (ref 6 or 7)-this can be shifted to another discussion page-. Please check.Frerejak (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is invalid even in an AfD, let alone a DR. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse (Keep): If it is a problem of sources or referencing, the page should be kept and developed. If it is a problem of civilisational conflict or vandalism : No opinion.Darkomeko (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Attempt at faking my account ? steward cat is not amused. It's sad how each and every attept of Boubaker at self-promoting ends up with lots of socks taking his side...DarkoNeko x 16:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. At this point it is not a problem of sourcing, it is a problem of WP:COI, sockpuppetry, and self-promotion. Basically I think Rirunmot should be blocked as yet another sockpuppet and that this DRV be closed as a bad-faith nomination. Additionally, given the widespread past sockpuppetry on Wikipedia, it's entirely plausible that there is also sockpuppetry going on in the academic publishing side of things: that is, I would need more than the usual amount of evidence to become convinced that the papers on this subject that are purportedly by different people than Boubaker really are. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close due to the outcome of this --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List_of_wedding_guests_of_Prince_William_of_Wales_and_Kate_Middleton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm calling for this to be reviewed, since as quite a few people clearly stated, the wedding itself was notable, the list of people going, not necessarily. Going to a Royal Wedding doesn't mean you become notable by attending or being invited, and I doubt many people will know half the names on the list of attendees. This afd was descended on by people purely interested in the celebrity of the people they knew, I'd imagine. I would ask for the keep result to be reviewed, since, just to be clear, notability is not inherited. FishBarking? 19:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, that was hard to wade through and, given the quality of many of the arguments raised on both sides, not really worth it. Plenty of emphatically-worded opinion statements including the word "cruft", particularly towards the end. In policy terms both the "keep" side and the "delete" side are well-explained early on. On the "delete" side, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm unpersuaded by WP:NOTINHERITED because of citations like this one (ref #71 in the article) which is one of several examples of fairly major headlines about who wasn't invited. (Former Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were also not invited, and there was news coverage of that fact too.) I'm also unpersuaded by WP:NOTDIR—I don't see how the policy actually prohibits such a list, if reliably-sourced. Nobody was planning to add the guests' phone numbers or shoe sizes. But WP:NOT#NEWS seems like a strong and substantive argument for deletion.

    On the "keep" side, the arguments were that the material is well-sourced, indicating notability and a general interest in the topic (such that people might look it up in an encyclopaedia!), and that it is too lengthy to include in the main article.

    I'm not thrilled that it was closed early. Such a well-attended and disputed AfD should have continued to the end. I also believe the correct close was "no consensus". Overall, I can't endorse this. But there's no way to see a "delete" consensus in that AfD and I don't believe the extra few hours would have made a critical difference to the outcome, so I can't recommend overturning it. A relist will not be productive, I think, but I see it as the best of a bad set of options, so relist.—S Marshall T/C 21:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Continuing the AFD would simply have been a waste of time and effort which wouldn't plausibly be expected to yield any result with a different effective outsome, since "no consensus" would of course default to keep. We ought to have a WP:QUAGMIRE standard to rapidly shut off overpopulated, overheated discussions without any hope of reaching resolution, when the likelihood of improving the encyclopedia is so low and the waste involved so high. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. For the same reason as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, no consensus would surely default to keep. --Dariocuccio (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the close was correct following the discussion presented. Personally, I would say that any non-notable individuals (i.e. those without a Wikipedia article) should be removed, but that is for another discussion and venue! The close was correct for the AfD as it stood at the time of closure. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. these lists often appear in secondary sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't like this particularly and suspect had it been listed in 6 months time (say) the outcome would differ (which suggest then it does indeed fail WP:NOTNEWS), however the argument about inherited notability is a red herring, appearing in a list article says nothing about notability and we certainly wouldn't entertain that as an argument for a standalone article on the person in the list. It's about the notability of the list as whole, we can't then edit that to only contain those we deem notable. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - My opinion? Merge into the other wedding articles. However, this is about the AfD, not an AfD itself, so I must endorse. CycloneGU (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closer comment Just to clarify that when I say 'the result was Keep', I mean by that the effective result; I didn't mean that there were a consensus to keep, as noted in my closing statement. Cenarium (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is one of those extremely rare situations when I might say an overturn to no consensus would make sense. The reason is that it is clear that the AfD was affected by running so soon after the event the article describes. This should stay for now, but it should probably be nominated again in a month or two when the honeymoon is over (both literally and figuratively), and I'd encourage the closer to say something along those lines in the close. Chick Bowen 00:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I said just above, and in my closing statement ? I didn't say that there were a consensus to keep, when I say the result was: keep, I'm talking about the effective result. The reason for my close is that "if allowed to follow its course [the AFD] would be highly unlikely to reach consensus for a decision other than keeping". People can renominate as they wish now that the marriage is over. Also, I've not been contacted before this was put to DRV. Cenarium (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and exactly the same thing has happened to me--I bolded the word "keep" in an AfD close while observing there was no consensus, and this was interpreted at DRV as a straight "keep" close (and like you, I was annoyed by that). So your point is well taken, and I generally agree with you, but I think there is a history of ambiguity in the way these kinds of closes are understood by the community. Chick Bowen 16:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Close was well within closing admins' discretion.--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The grounds for review seems incoherent. The early close is perhaps suspect but I doubt that more time would have made a difference. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_May_3&oldid=1142604706"