Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Continuum calculator

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 00:48, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Continuum calculator

Appears to be primary research. No reliable resources are given, the text is far from being understandable. There is a VfD running at de.wikipedia. You might be advised to check for related articles of the same author. -- 84.176.194.61 11:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete with 3 googlehits -MarSch 16:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The link in the article shows that this is a German-language neologism promoted by a single author. Not notable until (if) if receives attention in the field of AI. (The article is also not comprehensible.) The author also inserted links to Continuum calculator from a bunch of other articles that should be removed. Another related article, Information continuum, should also be deleted. Quale 17:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone can provide evidence that the idea was published in an scientific or technology journal.--JiFish 20:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Week keep - I am now convinced this was published in a peer-reviewed journal, making it intrinsically notable. --JiFish 13:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Week keep, article has reference to publication in what appears to be a peer-reviewed journal. Gazpacho 22:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I Thought that was self-published. But my German is very poor. If someone can confirm that this a peer-reviewed journal, I will change my vote to merge with neural networks or weak keep.--JiFish 23:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It would be a mistake to keep if the term has only been used in a single German language publication, even if peer reviewed. If no one else in the AI field finds the work interesting enough to cite, critique, or build on, then WP would be showing tremendous arrogance to decide that the idea is notable if it elicits a collective yawn from experts in the field. Quale 01:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone shows that this is more than speculative meanderings by a minor author. If Stanley Schmidt had written this, I might be interested. Kelly Martin 05:04, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete. Utterly meaningless. Robinh 11:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - didn't find any other reference, style is poor. Pavel Vozenilek 01:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Changed to no vote. It still feels poorly written but perhaps expert should be asked in this case. There's link on pretty old source code and executable. The exe doesn't wipe out the disk if someone wants to try. Pavel Vozenilek 17:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I asked for an opinion on talk page of Artificial neural network. Pavel Vozenilek 17:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - The article describes knowledge that has been published several years ago in a journal of the german Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. under the term Information Continuum. I must admit that it is very special knowledge and it is not interesting for everyone, quite as many other articles about specialized knowledge. I have added a link to the internet that allows you to download two example implementations and their source code files. This should proof evidence that the article describes working reality, not just a vague theory. Furthermore, I have replaced the image links by proper images. I know that my english is not perfect and I am willing to increase the comprehensibility. Please make your criticism about the comprehensibility more precise. -- Karsten88 15:01, 21 May 2005 (CEST)
• Article has been substantially expanded by Karsten88 but still appears to be original research. There's little question that this was published in a journal, but my knowledge is deficient as to whether Informationstechnik und Technische Informatik is a peer reviewed journal (or whether the article in question was published as a peer-reviewed article or merely as an unreviewed "letter"), so I'm dropping my delete vote for now. Perhaps someone more literate in German than I can provide more information. Kelly Martin 14:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The article has been updated. I appreciate the effort and it's prettier, but I still cannot change my delete vote. Although the work was published in a single journal, there's still no evidence that any other AI researchers have given this theory the slightest bit of thought. There are hundreds of thousands of journal articles published each year. This WP article is essentially a vanity article solely for that single journal article which appears to be entirely insignificant. If WP goes down this path, expect articles for each of the tens of thousands of masters and PhD theses published each year. Sorry, it's a nice looking article, but still orginal research and non-notable. The bar for scientific theory has to be higher than a single publication of an obscure theory that appears to be ignored by experts in the field. It's a mistake to keep WP articles like this because they give the reader who is not familiar with the field an entirely distorted view of what's important. Quale 22:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.