Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OS 0 1 2 (second nomination)

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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OS 0 1 2

A DRV consensus overturned the previous deletion of this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OS 0 1 2, given new information. Please consult both the original AfD and the DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural relisting to evaluate encyclopedic suitability, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete again. As far as I can tell, this "master meme" hasn't spread particularly far. The proposed Wikipedia requirements for Internet memes require that the meme be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the meme itself". This doesn't appear to be the case; a Google search turns up this very article in first place, a couple of the sites on which the "dialectic" is presented, a brief discussion of the subject on the randi.org forums, in which it is quickly dismissed as "meaningless blarney", two blog entries presenting it as a random link without comment, and a bunch of unrelated hits containing the words "OS 0 1 2" out of context. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn a of yet. First google hit is wikipedia, second google hit is identical information in the p2pfoundation wiki. All other hits appear to be unrelated. --Pboyd04 21:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep* It already won two OVERTURN and KEEPS last week on wiki in a special hearing on the matter. one from a computer scientist who is qualified to vote on such things. The actual entry is not 'master meme', or meme of any nature, so I dont see how the wiki policiy on notable memes even applies based on the articles content, 'master meme' is simply a term that is used on the homepage to creatively market the project, OS 012 is not just notable for it being a meme, it is notable because it addresses online communication into a formal system, recieving peer review from the appropiate communities that it was designed for (such as the P2P foundation). The entry is about a dialectic for online discussion, noting a very similar process to what wikipedia uses on the AfD, and this process is already used by thousands of people all over the world. Right now, a paper is underway to submit the formal logical and dialectical system of OS 012 to wikipedia to improve the AfD process. Secondly, try doing another google search, as well as blog search, as OS 012, as well as O 1 2, and you will see for yourself chatter on the internet about it in blogs and discussion forums. Also, try other search engines. Thirdly, your completely misrepresenting the Randi forum; i.e. you are mistreating the information. It wasn’t even a discussion about OS 012, it was an informal discussion regarding a physicist who is taking the randi challenge, and even if it was, read it and note that the only comment on it that it received was that it was 'interesting'. There has been a off-line publication from England that wrote a story about OS 012 a few years back, in addition to another journal who is publishing something on it in a few months, again from England. There are also a few mutations of the idea on the net as provided in the bottom section of the page. It is also listed on the P2P foundation wiki by invitation. This system of logic and dialectic may increasingly become more relevant as more and more internet users communicate or resolve disputes via email or online forums The community suporting it may be small for now, as is P2P culture in general, but since the idea is spreading over the internet, a third person POV on the matter is both informative and helpful. A few google searches a day turn up on the source page of people researching OS 012 on the internet, and these can be provided as proof if anyone wishes. User:Tumbleman
• Delete - Non-notable original research. --SJK 09:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment* SJK, since this page has already been discussed and that issue addressed, as well as overturned, can you explain how you came to the conclusion that it is original research and not-notable? I ask that you address this point. I find many wiki editors assuming things a bit too quickly, having knee jerk reactions, and many are simply unfamiliar with Open Source concepts or P2P culture. Simply , your point is not valid, and if your decision to delete was based on that, I respectfully ask that you reconsider. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and knee jerk reactions to vote things off simply is not a justification for deleting a relevant entry.User:Tumbleman
• Delete, WIkipedia being the first Google result is a bad sign. This appears to be under some heavy campaigning. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment* Do you understand how google works? Many topics on wiki also turn up with wikipedia first, because wikipedia gets massive hits from internet users. Unfair and misleading comment User:Tumbleman
• Delete. The Google results indicate to me that Tumbleman is running some kind of astroturfing campaign, which violates "Wikipedia is not a soapbox." Specifically:
  • The "BASIC" link is on the home site
  • The JREF link is a thread created by "Bubblefish" who admits that he is the site administrator. Tumbleman has said that he is administrator of the same site.
  • The P2P foundation site provides no source except the home site
  • Most of the hits are not relevant
  • While a couple of the relevant sites mention Dr. Lyndon Storey's "The Human Union", none of them say that Storey supports or even knows of "OS 0 1 2"

To put it simply: If this has been around since Dec. 2002, where's the paper trail? This is not the first article to come to AfD containing an editor's original thoughts, backed only by his own web site and mirrors. Verifiability applied to those, and it applies to this as well. Gazpacho 06:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Gazpacho. "If this has been around since Dec. 2002, where's the paper trail?" Well put. -- GWO
  • • Comment* I accuse Gazpacho of mistreating information to suit his personal vendetta: he is doing a incomplete research, doesnt respond to requests or points made. on accusation of astroturfing:sorry, I dont even know what astroturfing is, and how dare you accuse me of some sort of deception? User:Tumbleman

• • • Comment* on JREF Forum:True but who cares? what relevancy is that? User:Tumbleman

• • • Comment* On P2P foundation:;The P2P foudation lists the SOURCE page, the only page it should list, as well as other mutations independent of the sourcepage. User:Tumbleman

• • • Comment*on irrelevant hits; try OS 012 instead of 0 1 2 as I requested. User:Tumbleman

• • • Comment* on Lyndon Storey; Wrong...I happen to work with Lyndon personally and he is in the process of adding the relevant links to OS 0 1 2. Besides, what relevancy is that anyway? User:Tumbleman
    • Comment On Paper trail and accusation of fraud;* Here is a link to a magazine in England that published OS 012 in thier winter 2002/spring 2003 issue. http://www.ivanfraser.com/mainpages/magazines.html You would have found this on GOOGLE if you did the proper search like I requestedUser:Tumbleman
    • Delete* You know what? I concede for now, as this process is turning into a sham. Gazpacho-you dont know what your talking about at all, and since I have already been through a process with you on another topic before, I detect hostility, and your simply being unfair, you find information, mistreat it to suit your position, and then accuse me of deception, which I vehemently resent. I called for a fair hearing on this topic, and it PASSED. This second AfD process is faulted heavily in this regard. I shall resubmit this page in the future after the proper submission to wikipedia has been made to use OS 012 to assist in the AfD. For future refrence, here are the links in the past 3 days from the site of hits from google of people searching for OS 012,some even in other countries, see for yourself.http://www.google.com/search?q=%22OS+0+1+2%22&star

http://www.google.de/search?client=firefox-a&rls=o http://www.google.de/search?client=firefox-a&rls=o http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en& http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=OS+012&hl=en User:Tumbleman

• I'm not accusing you of deception, just going about this the wrong way, like so many other authors of OR who try to promote it here. It's unfortunate that we have to occasionally hurt a determined editor's feelings to enforce policies, but that's life. "What relevancy"? In both cases, it's called independent sourcing. Referring me to forum posts by Bubblefish, AKA TUmbleman doesn't add anything to your own say-so. I think that would be obvious. Gazpacho 17:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You have most certainly accused me of deception if I take the objective meaning of your words in this exchange. You dont respond to points made by myself ever, you dont retract false statements made by yourself after the fact. Secondly, when did I refer to you to that discussion forum? Never, that's a strawman. Going about this the wrong way? I requested a fair hearing on the topic already, a much stricter process than this, and this page won it's entry. Thirdly, I admit that I personally have done research on this project, but that personal research is not the source of the project, yet you continually reinforce that issue over and over.When I give examples of indepedent sourcing, they are ignored. My feelings are not hurt, I am simply frustrated by what I have determined to be an unfair hearing on the topic. What is the point of having a fair hearing and winning when the next day, those who disagree simply return it to the same place they pesonally wished the topic to be? If I am mistaken about you, Gazpacho, then you would retract many of your off comments here, and you havent. Same thing on the Human Union entry, i requested you change your vote to a re-write based on our argument, and you simply ignored my request even though your points were addressed/rebutted rationally and respectfully. Again, this process here is faulted. At least it becomes more apparent that Wikipedia use something like the framework of OS 012 to come to consensus. My point is that if people are searching for this on google, which I recieve about 10-15 unique hits a week from google searches on the topic, it makes sense to have a third party point of view on the topic, especially when the dialectic is accepted in communties that promote P2P culture. No one addresses that issue, they simply keep their blinders on and refuse rational discourse. The No Original Research policy is here to discourage quakery, and the applications inside of this dialectic, such as game theory and a formal system of logic, are not original research. User:Tumbleman
• Delete again, or possibly merge to ternary logic. The meme is not here, yet. (Use of "0", "1", and "2", as opposed to "?", "0" or "-", and "1" or "+" is clearly a WP:NEO.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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.