Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bowers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus on Jonathan Bowers, delete on the rest. Mangojuicetalk 04:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I note this was muddled b/c arguments about the bajillion number redirects and his work don't translate to criticisms of the biography itself; many arguing for deletion made no comment on that issue, many who commented on it wanted the bio kept. Mangojuicetalk 04:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Bowers

I believe he is a non-notable math and numbers fan with a big imagination. I suggest his page be deleted, together with Jonathan Bowers' large numbers, Jonathan Bowers' array notation and all the redirects to Jonathan Bowers: Quingentillion -- Sescentillion -- Septingentillion -- Octingentillion -- Nongentillion -- Millillion -- Nanillion -- Zeptillion -- Yoctillion -- Vecillion -- Mecillion -- Duecillion -- Trecillion -- Tetrecillion -- Pentecillion -- Hexecillion -- Heptecillion -- Octecillion -- Ennecillion -- Icosillion -- Triacontillion -- Tetracontillion -- Pentacontillion -- Hexacontillion -- Heptacontillion -- Googolplexian -- Googolquadriplex -- Googolquinplex -- Googolsexplex -- Googolseptaplex -- Googoloctaplex -- Googolnonaplex -- Googoldecaplex -- Octacontillion -- Ennacontillion -- Hectillion -- Killillion -- Megillion -- Gigillion -- Terillion -- Petillion -- Exillion -- Zettillion -- Yottillion -- Xennillion -- Vekillion -- Duekillion -- Trekillion -- Tetrekillion -- Pentekillion -- Hexekillion -- Heptekillion -- Octekillion -- Ennekillion -- Twentillion -- Triatwentillion -- Icterillion -- Thirtillion -- Fortillion -- Fiftillion -- Sixtillion -- Seventillion -- Eightillion -- Nintillion -- Hundrillion -- Thousillion -- Lakhillion -- Crorillion -- Awkillion -- Bentrizillion -- Botillion -- Trotillion -- Icpetillion -- Ikectillion -- Iczetillion -- Ikyotillion -- Icxenillion -- Multillion -- Versillion -- Supillion -- Gaxillion -- Mejillion -- Gijillion -- Astillion -- Lunillion -- Fermillion -- Jovillion -- Solillion -- Betillion -- Glocillion -- Notillion -- Yootillion -- Zotillion -- Exotillion -- Potillion -- Totillion -- Dalillion -- Tralillion -- Talillion -- Palillion -- Exalillion -- Zalillion -- Yalillion -- Nalillion . So, Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is the creator of, or contributor to, many related articles. BlueValour 18:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Huh? We all know who Salix Alba is; he's a regular on WP:WPM, and is usually considered trustworthy. linas 04:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I checked a few of the links and the ones I did were redirects. Oh well, it should be an early shower for Jonathan Bowers. Delete with prejudice. --Richhoncho 18:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "Alas being an amature he has not published in journals or in print." I couldn't have put it better myself. ~ trialsanderrors 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete All and block from recreation as NN and/or WP:OR--Nick Y. 18:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. He has invented a notation that exceeds all other notations in representing large numbers. Such large numbers can't be represented with any other notations. Helicoptor 18:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    User has been blocked as a sockpuppet. - Bobet 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I was going to wait until I could propose the entire Polychoron neologism walled garden for deletion, as well as the large number walled garden, by asking a professional recreational mathematician who has worked in the field whether it's actually used, but I'm afraid he's got to go now. As for "This notation has allowed Bowers to name the largest finite number ever conceive of by man.": I could name a larger one by diagonalizing his current notation. So there :-P Also, there are a number of professional recreational mathematicians who would have referred to his work if it were notable. None have been named in the references. (I've contacted one, but he might be on vacation.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah you see you could only create a bigger number by reference to a notation system which allowed you to do such. Without Bowers notation your stuck with the limited Conway notation. --Salix alba (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Not really. I could diagonalize Conway's notation multiple times, and would probably catch up to Bowers. If you'll pay me (I am a professional mathematician, after all :) , I'll investigate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I do not believe Bowers meets the notability criteria. The array notation and large number names are neologisms, original research with no reliable sources. CMummert 19:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Citations
A bit of digging using search term Jonathan Bowers polyhedra finds a host of links some of which include
  • Delete the whole bowillion of them. Dlyons493 Talk 20:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Your comment shows a serious misunderstanding of original research, as opposed to established research/theories/naming conventions. There is wonderful original research going on all the time but only after a certain amount of peer review, general acceptence with the scientific community and wider impact does this sort of thing go in an encyclopedia.--Nick Y. 23:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Original research" is (for Wikipedia purposes) research not documented by a reliable source. So, OK, I concede the point: Newton does not count as an OR purveyor because his research is (now) documented by a reliable source (maybe a couple ;) ). I still don't think "purveyors of OR don't get in" is a sensible position. If a purveyor of OR is verifiable and notable and meets our other policies and guidelines, who cares about whether any research he's done is documented by a reliable source? But I guess this is probably not what GWO meant (although I don't understand what he did mean), and I feel like I'm derailing this thread, so I'm going to shut up now. —Caesura(t) 00:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
All I'm saying is : if you want to get in wikipedia as a mathematician, a prerequisite is to have your work published in a major peer-reviewed journal, or be frequently referenced by articles in such journals. That's where real mathematicians establish their credentials. Everything else is self-promotion. -- GWO
Scientific/Mathematical OR means research unpublished in reputable scientific journals. Which describes Bowers work. For 17th century mathematicians, the criterion is relaxed a little. -- GWO
  • Delete all unless a reliable source establishing notability can be found. Note lack of Google Book Search and Google Scholar results for quadragintillion, the name of the smallest number that Bowers has branded. —Caesura(t) 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Undecided on bio page; delete everything else. I am reconsidering my position in light of all the changed votes. Can anyone present substantial, reliable evidence (preferably in a print, media, or academic source) of notability? I'm still not convinced that he is, say, more notable than the average college professor (per WP:BIO#Alternative tests). —Caesura(t) 14:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 4 dimensional uniform polyhedra is a made up thing. I am going to start writing articles on theoretical Cryptozoology and start classifying alien creatures that might exist in a parallel universe. --Xrblsnggt 00:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That is not in good faith. It's a mathematical concept. Whether it's interesting (the equivalent of notable) is another question, and whether the analysis is verifiable by peer-reviewed (the equivalent of reliable) sources are still open. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Just as the Moobrian Gutter Slug is a cryptozoological concept. I expect the same open-mindedness when I unveil my article on Fauna Of Dimension XIII. --Xrblsnggt 04:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. In mathematics, saying that something is a made up thing is meaningless. However, reliable sources are important. In cryptozoology, there are no reliable sources, so we have to make do with newspaper articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. Everyone who studies regular four-dimensional figures will eventually find the same set; this suggests that they are more "real" than, say, the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. —Tamfang 19:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Nevertheless, Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal has an article and 4 dimensional uniform polyhedra does not. --Xrblsnggt 22:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Partly because article titles are normally singular (polyhedron not polyhedra); partly because (pace Salicis supra) practically nobody calls the four-dimensional figures "polyhedra". The generic term for any number of dimensions is polytope; no specific term for four dimensions is as widely accepted as that, but polychoron seems to be the most popular. A polychoron's surface consists of polyhedra. —Tamfang 01:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I created a redirect. Couldn't resist. ;) —Caesura(t) 14:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Bowers' works are fascinating, but not notable enough. --Ixfd64 03:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep bio page, delete all the numbers pages - see WP:NOT Crystal Ball section, #2: individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 13:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I gotta vote keep just to give the poor guy some RESPECT. It's not like Bowers' even cares to be "bio'd" on wikipedia. His work is more than respectable as far as I'm concerned, and I wish he WOULD come on over to Wiki and share some of his excellent polytope images! Seriously, I think nobody with ANY BRAIN would want a wikipedia article describing them, and editable by ANYONE! A bio is always FICTION, and pretty much offensive until you're dead! YUK! ;) Tom Ruen 04:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed vote to Keep bio page, delete all the numbers pages, and watch the page like a hawk to see that it remains a stub until he's referenced in published papers. If [[polychoron}polychora]] are to remain, the principle investigators should also remain. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • likewise change vote Keep bio page, delete all the numbers pages. --Salix alba (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep bio, neutral on the number pages. Per above. Voortle 20:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • delete numbers, neutral as to bio —Tamfang 20:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep bio; delete all others, including the numbers notation stuff. --C S (Talk) 10:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all. The numbers are much larger than any other numbers, including Graham's number.Poppercorn 23:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment - have you seen WP:NOT? individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names pretty much defines this - he created a pattern, and the articles follow that pattern. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hang on, thats taken out of context its individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, the section refers to predictions not an exisiting objects. --Salix alba (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • User is a suspected sockpuppet created within a day of this vote. - Bobet 10:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep at least the large numbers page (retract vote, see below). (no opinion on the rest). I cleaned up the large numbers page so that it actually looks marginally presentable to someone seriously interested in large numbers. It may not seem to be all that interesting, until it is reviewed in the context of Robert Munafo's work (see the url in the article Jonathan Bowers' large numbers). The Munafo page is a legitimate and mathematically interesting page, at least to anyone who's read through Conway's On Numbers and Games, which is a rather amazing book. Insofar as Jonathan Bowers' large numbers appears to be a refinement, it seems notable enough to me. linas 03:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. those of you who voted to delete, I suggest taking another look at Jonathan Bowers' large numbers, and comparing it to similar articles, such as Knuth's up-arrow notation, hyper operator, tetration, Conway chained arrow notation, Steinhaus-Moser notation or more abstractly, surreal numbers or star (game). I hope you'll see that its not outrageous, and that it fits into the scheme of things. linas 04:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Retract my vote. On closer inspection, the first section describes the hyper operator (and more or less states that). I can't make sense of the second part; it appears to be an alternate notation for the Conway chained-arrow notation, and as such, is not novel. linas 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. All those comparisons were written up into journal articles. Bowers didn't, so it's OR from the perspective of Wikipedia. Publish or perish. -- GWO
Most recreational mathematics never gets published in a journal. Most things that we like to slap the "OR" label on and delete have the additional property of being wrong. linas 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
In this case, the error would be This is a standard notation. That may yet be true, but on the evidence now seen, this has been squeezed out between Knuth's and Ackerman's. Septentrionalis 14:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all per above. Hoxxy 12:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    User is a suspected sockpuppet created within a day of this vote. - Bobet 10:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep bio and number pages. Hardee67 04:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Half-and-half': keep the Jonathan Bowers article on the guy (the template that claims it is original research is... horribly wrong. Look at the references to begin with), but delete the articles pertaining to his numbers. Instead, make a new list, which is linked to from Jonathan Bowers, which lists all of his numbers. Have a short introduction to his numbers on the Jonathan Bowers article. I recommend the name Jonathan Bowers' Numbers or something similar. Furthermore, whoever wrote this article should find out if this guy has written an autobiography or the like, in order that it may be referenced. Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III Talk to me! 07:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep number pages and bio per above. The Gecko 12:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    User is a suspected sockpuppet created within a day of this vote. - Bobet 10:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all with prejudice. There are no reliable references for any of it. They can be created later as articles if some references turn up and enough that demonstrate importance. As it is it's all OR and needs to be deleted. - Taxman Talk 13:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, original research, no references, external links only point to the person's own website and another site that doesn't mention him. No indication of being influential or notable, no mention on google scholar. - Bobet 10:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - this was incorrectly closed this morning as a no consensus' - but I am fairly sure if you count the 'delete the numbers pages' vote, you'd find a valid delete vote. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Jonathan Bower's home page. Rghi 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    User's first edit, and only one not to his own userpage. - Bobet 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. —Ruud 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all and recommend that closing admin check each voter's edit history, as it looks like there's considerable sockpuppetry going on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all -- so many WP:NOTs, not for not notable bios, not for made up words, not for words you hope will become the next google, not for articles that include the phrase "He sometimes refers to himself as..." -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:04, 21 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.