User talk:Sebastian Palacios

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds... A.E.

[edit] AfD nomination of Paul F. Whelan

An article that you have been involved in editing, Paul F. Whelan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul F. Whelan. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding professor, but does not meet notability necessary to be in a encyclopedia. Even a full professor at a major university is not notable just for this fact. The article only relies on one single source which poorly supports the article, which is already poor, for two reasons: one, it is a primary source; second, part of the page is written in first person which means that the information has been stated by himself. Thus, it does not meet notability nor reliability. He is an outstanding professional and I am sure he is in the right track to become notable and appear in a encyclopedia.--Sebastian Palacios (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

An outstanding professor is by definition is appropriate for an encclopedia, just as an outstanding actor or politician or a fiction writer or musician. That's what the bio part of an encyclopedia is for: outstanding people. Notable is "worthy of note" and outstanding things are worthy of note. A full professor at a college is not necessarily outstanding, one at a major research university is, for its the top of the profession. Te major leagues in baseball is enough, not just the all-star team or the hall of fame. Primary sources are acceptable for the routine facts; the books and publication which is what makes researchers notable is verified through outside sources. Your proposed standards here are higher than in any other human profession. Maybe that can be seen as a tribute to how many researchers are important in the world, but the effect is the other way round. DGG (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hiding/What_notability_is_not. No significant coverage; not reliable sources; not independent from the subject.

Politicians, fictions writers, musicians and athletes are good examples to support and idea. However, the difference is that such professions achieve notability just by being outstanding because they already involve a world-wide view; something that does not happen with a professor. Unless every outstanding professional is listed in a encyclopedia. For example, there are 15 millions engineers in the world. If we count who many outstanding engineers exist and existed, wikipedia will end up with double of the articles it already has. Now, add 9.5 million physicians worldwide, 15 million IT professionals worldwide, doctors, lawyers, and 1000 professionals occupations more.

A review of his biography, in his self-published biography reveals a lot of completed work which may seem very important to someone who does not know about computers programming. However, for someone who knows; it is not that important. His work on World Wide Web based Remote Access is just the creation of a course; NETvision is a software that even though excellently compiled and has logarithms developed in Java has no world-wide relevance,

However, if one looks at his current projects, those deserve attention and once completed they may meet the guidelines for notability. Some professionals set their goals too close and others one too far. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Agre.--Sebastian Palacios (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied at some length on my talk page. further discussion at afd or by email. DGG (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Brilliants calculations, but some corrections shall be made.

Only North America, part of Europe, Australia, and Argentina has a literacy rate close to its population number according to the CIA book fact. Therefore the 1% estimated, which is mere assumption, is reduced by mathematical probability from the number of humans capable of writing a reading –not saying that those who cannot read or write are cannot be notable because they can- is reduced to 0.82%. Now, if we count the number of people who are actually brilliant, according the U.S. department of education only 0.025 percent of U.S. population can pass an academic reasoning test without problem. Apply that rate to high-income countries, and apply a rate of the index between that rate to the literacy rate in medium and low income countries. People notable not for being brilliant can almost be dropped because the number is too small compared to 6 billion of humans. Add to that the rate of people who are actually professionals and you will get a percent rounded to two significant digits –because otherwise it would be zero- to 0.21 percent. Which is still 6 million articles. Anyways, this calculation is based largely on assumption, and has no relevance whatsoever. If we take the assumption of 1/4 of people, then the number is 1.5 million, and doubled 3 million. That again, a calculation based on assumptions has little relevance.

Anyways, the software NetVision is not important. It is something that can be accomplish by anyone with academic knowledge in Java, DCT, Improved FFT, 3D volume processing and surface rendering –which is common knowledge in different majors-. Compare that to software Viz, or even AutoCAD. If you compare the model space and paper space using controlling layers per view port, or check the Wblock Review or even a simple shifting filter; you quickly come to the conclusion that this software has no relevance whatsoever. I do not see a project worth of note other that the ones he is working on, and until they are not complete and evaluated nothing will change. People without knowledge in certain areas get to mistakenly assume notability that in fact does not exist. Thank goodness we have more than a million registered editors; and out of those, users with knowledge in different areas exist.

The conversation above is just about two different views of two users, and if continued will have the same relevance as if it is not because both versions have been explained already.--72.28.132.220 (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(just for the record, the only way to find my actual views on personal matters is to email me.)DGG (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AutoCAD Wiki

You may be interested in contributing to wikicities:AutoCAD. I'm sure your help there would be appreciated. Tom Haws (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)