Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibraimage

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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vibraimage

Vibraimage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article promotes but makes no verifiable claim for the notability of this technology. Shunpiker 19:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - multiple external references and external links are provided for verification. As the references are all book sources, I can't check them out, but it looks like they probably constitute multiple non-trivial coverage by third-party sources, which satisfied WP:N. Walton monarchist89 19:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please re-examine the references. There is no indication that the third-party sources (e.g. Nobel-prize winner Konrad Lorenz' On Aggression) discuss "Vibraimage". These references (Lorenz, Darwin, Freud, Aristotle, etc.) are given to argue the importance of what -- without reliable sources indicating otherwise -- can only be called "Original Research". Google is also little help in finding independent verification for the relevance of this technology. It may also be worth noting the conflict-of-interest issues in the edit history. -- Shunpiker 19:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK fair enough; as I explained, I can't check out the book sources myself (not having instant access to a scientific library) and will take your word for it. Weak Delete therefore, pending further information on the exact content of the sources cited. Walton monarchist89 19:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Unsourced OR of dubious value. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - reads more like an advertisement than an encyclpaedic article. Possibly a hoax. More likely a bit of non-notable technology that isn't used much. Perhaps when it takes the world by storm it should then be written about. Maustrauser 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it is a technology patented in five countries, which means that it is a novel technology (according to patentability criteria). Certainly the article could use some clean-up, i.e. make it less of an advertisement, cut out any original research, make it more encyclopedic, use more accurate references, etc., but deletion is a wrong move. I would be glad to start a main page on emotional imaging technology analogous to imaging technology, so to group up the other related technologies, e.g. John Gottman, microexpression, and a few others which I know are around somewhere? I think, in total, the subject of emotional recognition, discerned via the various technologies, would be an interesting and good encyclopedic article to have, one which I would contribute to. Terrorist recognition is a hot topic presently and this seems to be a technology with application in area. Certainly put clean-up or reference tags on the article but not deletion. --Sadi Carnot 13:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: - A novel technology is not necessarily a notable one, and the granting of patents does not in itself bestow notability. The working draft of the guideline for notability in science says "Wikipedia does not usurp the usual validation processes of scientific institutions such as peer review, scientific consensus, and academic recognition." In the case of "Vibraimage", there is no indication that it has sustained such validation. Nor does "Vibraimage" appear to meet the criteria of Textbook science, Widely cited, Institutional recognition, Prominent advocacy, Press and fiction, Popular belief, or Historical interest. In fact, it's not clear whether "Vibraimage" has received any attention apart from that of its backers and creators. I find the subject of affective computing fascinating, and I would like to read more about it in its many applications. But "Vibraimage" is not necessarily a notable implementation, and until I see a reliable, independent source that says otherwise, I'm going to assume that it's not and that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. -- Shunpiker 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: the Russian article was created by user "Elsys" who also created most of the content here. And the Russian version (unlike the version on en:) does not read as a marketing brochure of a snake oil salesman. If this is kept the content should be reduced to what it is and irrelevant references to authorities should be removed.

I was not able to understand from the article what vibraimaging actually is - perhaps I am too dumb for it. I'll add that computer based evaluation of tiny changes of some characteristics of human body (e.g. skin color of injuries) is valid topic of research on at least couple of universities. Pavel Vozenilek 20:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment 2: after cleanup by Shunpiker the text has the proper form for a WP article. (An aside: "forensic identification of person by dynamic stereotype of locomotion" (identification by the way people walk as recorded by industrial cameras) is a new technology currently developed by a team in the Czech Republic.) Pavel Vozenilek 19:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete Some of the material in here may fit in elsewhere, but an article using this name is not yet justified since there seem to be zero peer reviewed articles referring to it under that name From the article: "John Gottman, who also used Ekman's principles, has used a similar technique." Similarly, the other RS citations are also besides the point, both the ones in this article and the ones in http://elsys.ru/review5_e.php, which is the commercial site. (It's the site for the Minkin ref). That there is a commercial site, and that there is no explicit link to it, makes this look a little like disguised commercial advertising. But no prejudice against it, for it may become notable later. DGG 00:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Tidy and remove the sales talk. Here is a quickly tidied Babelfish translation of the Russian version:-

A Vibraimage is an image, whose each point reflects the parameters of the vibration (frequency or amplitude) of the points of object in space. Vibroimage is one of the primary specific images (visible light, infrared, X-ray) that informatively characterize the object.

Vibraimage records and analyzes vibrations, motor activity, and special features of the psycho-dynamics of a man, by algorithmic conversion of a normal video image into the new vibroimage mode, which informatively reflects the emotional and psychophysiological state of the man. Vibroimage unites contemporary technical achievements with fundamental knowledge in medicine and psychology, and makes real the remote and non-contact automatic determination of the emotional state of the man.

The parameters of Vibraimage are also primary and informatively characterize the man as the parameters EEG, KGR or EKG.

Minkin, V. biometriya. From the identification of personality to the identification of thoughts IdMagazine 3 (6), 2002.

Minkin V. A., Nikolayenko N. N. the "television methods of the development of aggressiveness" = the "14th All-Russian scientific and technical conference" contemporary television "// FGUP BAR" electron ". - Moscow: 2006.

And see Talk:Vibraimage. 07:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 23:18, 25 February 2007 User:Anthony Appleyard

Comment: I edited the article to reduce the number of unsubstantiated claims. In this state I think it is not {{hoax}}-worthy, but it still does not demonstrate notability. -- Shunpiker 08:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I tried to classify article rejections and reply to it.

(1) "References to great scientists (Aristotle, Darwin, Lorenz, Freud, Ekman) that did not use the term vibraimage". Sure, the vibraimage is a novel term. But it reflects the movement and vibration of body, and all previous science conclusions about body activity are visualized by vibraimage. There are classical works like Darwin "The Expression of the emotions in man and animals" and Lorenz "On Aggression" which described the movement of animals and humans. In vibraimage processing we realized the algorithms suggested by Lorenz, who said that "frequency of movement is proportional to aggression level". Why we could not give the link to Lorenz, if we do it in vibraimage processing? It would be incorrect and I think that links for great scientists, that could not measure movement activity by technics, but analyzed the process in the mind is one of the goals for any encyclopedic science article.

(2) "Advertising and not an encyclopedic article". Look strange that primary image could be advertising. Elsys does not claim the vibraimage, we only discovered it. Furthermore, I am sure that if Darwin or Lorenz had web cameras, they discovered vibraimage several hundreds years ago. Also it concerns the great Russian scientist Ivan Sechenov, who wrote in 1853 that “every mind has muscular realization”. The great Brazil psychologist Mira y Lopez suggested in 1950 the theory of miokinetic diagnostics, which also very near to vibraimage, but Mira y Lopez had not web camera and computer for calculations and did manual processing, what is very difficult. So, I think that it is advertising only for science and great past scientists. Vibraimage is only technical realization of great past scientist ideas begins from Aristotle. Also, is very interesting that the word emotion means output of motion, see etymology of emotions. So, I prefer to add more links in this article, but it conflicts with (1)

(3) "Hoax". Every could see the vibraimage if you have a low noise web camera and software accumulated frames difference.

(4) "Not notable". I do not think that technology that try to do contactless and remote emotion control could be "not notable". Vibraimage analyzes the movement activity, it is the difficult task, because the movements and vibrations are little (microns). Emotion recognition needs to divide psychic and physiological processes, but it is not easy tasks. For example EEG (brain activity) processing exists more than 70 years, but there are many novel methods and ideas for EEG processing. 15 years ago I wrote about biometric passports and a little of people believe in it. Emotion recognition is more difficult than person recognition, but both are real. Elsys concentrates on terrorist detection, but vibraimage must be more open and used in normal life. Everyone could process vibraimage, receive more info about himself and this is one of ideas of wikipedia, to do the science more popular.

(5) "Short russian page". VibraImage is widely presents in russian, there are several articles and science reports (more than 1000 pages) in russian language. So I do not think that it is so necessary to have a big vibraimage russian page in wikipedia. The situation in English is the other. I think that vibraimage page could be interesting for readers and thanks for every person discussed this page.

Elsys 12:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply: 1.) I restored the mention of Konrad Lorenz. I didn't restore the reference, because the principal question here is not whether aggression correlates to movement or whether Lorenz observed such a thing, but whether there has been any independent review of "Vibraimage". 2.) Until the thory that vibrations in a digital image correlate to emotional states has sustained peer review, it would be irresponsible (and more importantly, against policy) for Wikipedia to describe it as a "discovery". 3.) The {{hoax}} tag was a comment on the article, and not a judgment on "Vibraimage" itself. Wikipedia is not in the business of verifying theories either positively or negatively. 4.) I agree that there is great potential in the claims of "Vibraimage". But unverified potential does not confer notability. 5.) Perhaps Nature, Psychology Today and Wired are missing the boat by not publishing articles on "Vibraimage". But it's not the place of Wikipedia to compensate for that. Until there are articles published in the English-language press, there is scant basis to establish notability or to verify anything which could be said about "Vibraimage". -- Shunpiker 14:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Most seriously probably violation of WP:COI as creator has same name as patent holder. Other problems non notable theories (although findable on Google with the company Elsys), references to Lorenz and other past heroes seems violation of WP:OR. Arnoutf 15:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply There is no conflict of interest because vibraimage is not patentable and does not belong to anybody. Firstly vibraimage page has historical links and science explanation, the links to Elsys site and other info about Elsys were done by other users and were taken from open sources. This was done according to Wikipedia policy, but I also do not see reasons for mention Elsys name on this page. For my mind the first reduction of vibraimage page with historical links to Aristotle, Darwin, Lorenz, Ekman and energy emotion model explanation was more right and correct than the last version. Elsys 14:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Homeopathic (very very very weak) keep It is a real product. It may well be smoke and mirrors, but that's not our job, sadly. It'll need strict policing to prevent it morphing into an advert. Greglocock 00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: The article seems serious, but not notable enough. I couldn't find anything in Google in English that didn't seem to originate with the inventors (including the Wikipedia articles). There are thousands of patents granted every day. This one is not notable until people actually notice it, and Wikipedia is not the place to start a PR campaign (try the conventional newspapers first!). Itub 09:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment How many primary images are known? Visible, thermo image, ultrasound, MRI, x-ray. Maybe I miss something. Vibraimage is the one of primary images and every primary image is notable for wikipedia. Elsys 07:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I can find hundreds of books, articles, websites, etc. completely devoted to X-rays, ultrasound, and MRI. The same is not true for vibraimage. Maybe it is a revolutionary discovery and in a few years there will be hundreds of books devoted to it. But we don't know that yet, and we don't have to guess. It is simply not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Itub 10:40, 28 February 2007 (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.