Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordinal fraction

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:09 UTC (2006-05-25)

This appears to be a non-notable Vanity page created by User:Bo Jacoby 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 Wikipedia, and a search on the Web of Science citation database turns up no one citing this publication. A further search for "ordinal fraction" on various databases, such as INSPEC turns up no usage of this neologism.

Note: I came across this article because we have had problems before with this user trying to promote personal nonstandard notations on Wikipedia. e.g. on Root of unity he tried to promote the nonstandard notation ${\displaystyle 1^{1/2}=-1}$ (see Talk), and some time after being rejected he tried to re-insert that notation in Exponentiation (twice, see Talk). He also tried to insert his own nonstandard redefinition of the discrete Fourier transform (see Talk, discussion of "involutary" DFT).

—Steven G. Johnson 15:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – non-notable concept. --Lambiam^Talk 15:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as, so far, unsubstantiated. Tyrenius 16:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. -- Kicking222 17:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. -- Zero sharp 18:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- looks to me like original research. Reyk _YO! 21:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable and perhaps original research. DarthVader 23:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 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. Melchoir 04:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Gandalf61 11:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Paddles 15:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Data Modelling concept is verifiable (although non-notable). (That means, I've seen it before — in fact, I've written a paper (Partitioning Files into Subfiles with Keys, 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 name 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 should have some explanation in papers related to Boolean Logic. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Verifiability and per nomination. Barno 01:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete The criteria in Wikipedia: vanity guidelines 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 vulgar fraction. The words ordinal and fraction are old, but the obvious combination ordinal fraction is from the 1990-article mentioned. If there is an article containing Arthur Rubin's results, we might merge. Bo Jacoby 15:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Vanity page is information that was placed in any Wikipedia 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 author. 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 Talk:Ordinal fraction, Wikipedia "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.) —Steven G. Johnson 16:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainj (talk • contribs)

If it's been published in a book or a refereed scholarly journal before being put on Wikipedia, 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? Michael Hardy 23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ... a book of conference proceedings? Unrefereed? Does the policy say anything about that? Michael Hardy 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 a source.) There are zillions of articles published in excellent refereed journals every year, but not all of them deserve a WP article. —Steven G. Johnson 23:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now we have heard five arguments for deletion. 1: Vanity; 2: 1^1/2; 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 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. Bo Jacoby 06:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Talk:Ordinal fraction, and even if there were, that wouldn't establish notability. Finally, since that one person is you, yes, it's vanity. Melchoir 07:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Refutation to Bo Jacoby. As far as I can tell, argument 1 has not been withdrawn; Steven Johnson's comment suggests to me that he thinks the article does meet the vanity criteria. My reading of Steven's comment on argument 3 is that the question of originality (whether the article violates WP:OR) 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 any 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. Paddles 12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bo, you don't help your case by making personal attacks and straw man 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 sufficient 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 necessary 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 not as an argument per se 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 anywhere 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. —Steven G. Johnson 17:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Steven. I am not making personal attacks or straw man arguments. I think you are. I am merely reading what you wrote: "This appears to be a non-notable Vanity page created by User:Bo Jacoby 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 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 necessary 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 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. Bo Jacoby 10:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Bo. Direct quote from WP:VANITY:

"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."

Direct quote from WP:Notability:

"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)."

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 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 is 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. Paddles 11:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bo, I'm not "mad at you", I simply have learned to mistrust your ability to follow Wikipedia 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 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 and never cited.) —Steven G. Johnson 16:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You answered my questions. Thank you.

Direct quote from WP:NOR:

"No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

Direct quote from WP:Vanity:

vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is

Direct quote from WP:Notability:

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.

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 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 Arabic numerals had immense importance and impact. Ordinal fraction technology has potentially the same importance and impact. Bo Jacoby 13:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Peta 02:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.