Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continuum calculator

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Continuum calculator

This article was on VfD 2005-05-16 for violating WP:NOR: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Continuum calculator. The result was no consensus. I'll give more reasons and more evidence to delete this article.

• Deletion reason 1: Original research, only one publication, no echo in the field.
• Deletion reason 2: Neologism, promoted by use of Wikipedia, not found anywhere else.
• Deletion reason 3: In order to prevent prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of material on subjects in which you are personally involved, it is often a good idea to wait until others lay the groundwork before creating or heavily expanding such articles. See Wikipedia:Autobiography which actually covers more than only autobiographies.

Evidence:

• Ad 1
  • In the preceding VfD no one was able to cite a second reference to the topic.
  • Google scholar doesn't give hits for "Continuum calculator": [1].
  • Google scholar gives only unrealted hits for "Information continuum": [2]
• Ad 2
  • Google searching for "Continuum calculator"[3] only^* gives results from Wikipedia and mirrors, compare the filtered search, which reduces the list to badly behaving mirrors [4]. ^*The single exception is a forum posting at the "Cannabis Edge" forum [5] about an unrelated subject.
  • The term Information continuum, also used and partially occupied by the article author, has an established other meaning.
• Ad 3
  • At de:Wikipedia:Wiederherstellungswünsche/Archiv/2005/3#Kontinuum-Rechner the author of the articles on de.wikipedia and en.wikipedia clarified, that he is also the author of the single published article in a journal.

Pjacobi 23:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I voted delete in the original VfD. This article is still original research and is non-notable. A single published article in a journal of uncertain reputation is not notable. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone in the artificial intelligence field has given this idea even 10 seconds of thought, so it is not deserving of a wikipedia article. Since the entire article is based on a single reference, in addition to original research it also suffers from serious verifiability problems. The entire article is based on a primary source. In general wikipedia prefers secondary sources as we are unable to make any qualitative claims based on primary sources without falling victim to original research. Quale 04:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is still the same diskussion. This AfD yields no new facts and arguments. Surely, the topic is of low interest in the field of AI. We do not know if other fields are interested in the topic. But the low interest is still considered the only reason for deletion. On the other hand there is no question about the neutrality and factual accuracy, because unlike many other articles the topic has been reviewed by a league of authorities in the field of information technology and is , therefore, scientifically proven. Due to Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#No double jeopardy this AfD does not make much sense. -- Karsten88 06:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

See new deletion reasons 2) and 3) and the expanded evidence. --Pjacobi 07:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

All these items are essentially describing "low relevance". Nothing new beyond this. -- Karsten88 08:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity, neologism, non-notable. is , therefore, scientifically proven - the article is about a proposed concept, not about actual facts, so its content can't be proven or falsified. (An exception is the statement a simple singularity model or a body model can be made with charge carriers, moving in electrical and magnetic fields which I, personally, doubt severely.) regards, High on a tree 10:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - honest to gosh, when I first saw this, I was horrified to find that vandals are uploading SCIgen papers!!! Closer examination revealed something which in a way is even more horrifying: this remarkably nonsensical article was written by a human! I see that this is the second time that this particular article has been proposed for deletion, and I agree with PJacobi's reasoning for renominating it: this article appears to be in clear violation of the proscriptions against "original research" [sic], vanity articles, and nonnotable topics. On rare occasions, nonsense does have a place in an encyclopedia (e.g. in a discussion of Claude Shannon's famous illustration of the differences between sentences generated by Markov chains and by humans, or perhaps in a discussion of neurological pathology), but this article appears to me to lack redeeming virtues. The article is also misleading in that it mentions genuine technical jargon, but appears to use these words in nonstandard (and nonsensical) ways.---CH (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.