Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I left a notice on several talk pages directing to here for the third nomination. I apologize, and the third nomination is actually here.

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 The result was No discernible consensus. I don’t think that I’ve ever seen such a convoluted AfD discussion. Beginning with an overly-long and complex nomination and ending up with a massive back-and-forth disagreement with 3 sections, 10 subsections, and a 7-section talk page. For the record, I’ll note this AN/I thread concerning this nomination. Also, even though the nominator signed the nomination on 22 March, the nomination was actually on 20 March. —Travistalk 19:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Myrzakulov equations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Rationale for deletion

  • This article is being proposed for deletion primarily on two grounds: 1) Lack of "notability" 2) Inappropriateness of articles being used for publicity and self-promotion.

It seems to have been created by its original author, G.N. Nugmanova, a former student and collaborator of Myrzakulov, and subsequently enhanced by them both, or others in their immediate entourage, primarily as a vehicle for self-promotion. They have assigned his name to a large number of equations, which are mainly variations of the standard continuous spin field equation known by some as the Landau-Lifschitz equation. These variations are not generally known amongst experts in the field, and are likely to be of interest only to the author, her supervisor, and their collaborators. They do not justify a Wikipedia entry devoted to them.

In the scientific domain, most researchers, especially those of genuine distinction, do not overtly try to name an equation after themselves. If there happens to be such a coinage, it is usually arrived at as a result of common practice within the community of experts and gets adopted in time. The author of the equations in question seems not to have been content merely to have his student name one equation after him; he has produced over fifty of them! (if I understand his numbering correctly). It is very questionable however whether any of these have interest for anyone other than the Myrzakuov and his collaborators. To me, it seems clear that they are generally unknown to experts in nonlinear equations of mathematical physics, and do not have adequate interest, either from the viewpoint of physical applications, or intrinsic mathematical content, to justify having such an article devoted to them. It seems to be primarily motivated by an attempt at self-promotion.

It is true that Myrzakulov has published several papers, apparently mainly joint works with several other authors, in journals that generally have reasonable peer review standards. In fact some of these coauthors have somewhat more recognition in the area than does Myrzakulov. I am not impugning his qualifications to publish such articles, or commenting in any detail on their merits. However, I do find it very suspicious when an author of scientific papers that are not regarded by the expert community as having any distinction or notability chooses such unconventional means for promoting his work.

A great deal gets published in this field, and not all of it is of the first calibre. The fact that an author has published some papers in respectable journals is certainly not an adequate reason to have a wikipaedia article devoted to them, or to identfy them by the author's name as though this were common usage, and as if the equations had some established importance.

Work of genuine notability is, sooner or later, recognized within the expert community on its own merits, and not by such primitive self-promotional devices as enshrining them in a wikipaedia article that consists of little more than a listing of obscure equations to which the author has attached his own name and a number.

It seems that a previous deletion debate has taken place (Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations), and ended as inconclusive. This should not be the outcome of the present discussion. It is to be hoped that others, who are well qualified to express an opinion, will do so, and not just the author of the article in question, collaborators and friends. It should end conclusively with deletion of the article.R_Physicist (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Beginning of discussion

  • I'm not going to pretend I've read much of the article, because it's far too technical for me. However, from the into and the massive number of red links in it, I doubt its notability. All the refs besides the last four are articles written or co-written by the person whom the equations are named after. It's got problems, sure, but as far as I can see they can be fixed. If these things are real (and I'm assuming they are), there should be some more refs lying around. The technical parts of it can be trimmed, and red links removed. I'm gonna' say weak keep, pending a whole ton of copyediting, wikifying, and citations. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I do not like it. Nothing much changed since the last AfD: the text still looks horrible and notability is still borderline. Twice mentioned on google books (the authors do not seem to belong to the same clique: [1]), 28 times mentioned on google scholar ([2]), and although the quotes are from the same clique, I notice that here in Belgium Google tells me I can find the quotes on an online reference base of Brussels University. That kind of thing takes work and time devoted by someone to put those things accessible online and there are three of them. The number of googles has naturally gone down since January as the article was in the spotlight in January due to deletion drives on English Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia and the Online Soviet Dictionary, and it got indeed deleted on the last two. I do not like the article either, it needs to be substantially rewritten in order to look like an encyclopaedic entry, there is probably some COI involved, probably not by the author himself but by one of his associates, who desperately wanted to keep this thing on Wikipedia. That reflects not on (the limited number of) external references, but mostly on the content: some of the equations are not even Myrzakulov's (in fact a good idea would be to just give a mathematically sound summary of the whole kaboodle and only literally quote the first one which according to google seems to be noteworthy as the "Lakshmanan-Myrzakulov equation" - 69 googles of the total of 217 for Myrzakulov equation). All that is wrong with this article (and you do not need to be a scientist to see that almost everything is wrong with it) does not justify deleting it. As the guy is Kazakh, writes primarily in Russian (having studied at Tomsk University, yes, I've done my homework) and seems to have struck a chord only with Chinese scientists, this may also be a case of WP:BIAS. What really gets me over the edge to propose keep, is that the guy may be a freak, but not a fraud or a fringe theorist. Have a look at this. Now google for "De Witt Sumners" or "Avraham Soffer" (Abraham is a common Russian mistake here) to know who they are, and add "nonlinear wave" to see what they do. They do not seem to think Myrzakulov is a fraud. Of course, if after their visit, the equation count continues to go down, that may mean this name is not going to catch on. In the meantime, it is just a question of fixing it, and I gave an indication how it could be done, but sorry, I am not a mathematician. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, if Wikipedia is to have any credibility whatsoever on matters of scientific content, it is not by "popular vote" that such things can be decided. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if the conclusion about retaining/deleting articles that have been found by experts in the field to be unsuitable is to be determined by "popular vote", in which the opinion of knowledgeable experts in the field counts for no more than those who admit to not having read the article, and being without qualifications to judge it, this would reduce the process to something quite silly. I am curious to see if this really is the case, since it will give me a better idea of whether Wikipedia is a reliable mechanism for transmitting knowledge or just a sandbox in which all and sundry may have the pleasure of playing out their fantasies of wisdom and knowledgeability in a semi-public forum, but of no reliability whatsoever as a source of knowledge. R_Physicist (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, it is not up to us to decide whether you are more knowledgeable in this nonlinear wave field than De Witt Sumners and Avraham Soffer - or any scientist outside Myrzakulov's entourage who quoted his equations, for that matter. Talking about boxes - WP:SOAP. If you are knowledgeable, why do you not fix, sorry, tear apart the article until all fantasy is removed? The argument here is not about whether we like the article or not, the argument is whether it is notable enough to deserve an article. I do not like the article in its present state either, but it is about something that has indeed been mentioned in a number of scholarly reviews. And in any case, it is not a vote. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly right; it is not up to you to decide who is more, or less knowledgable, nor whether this article is notable or not, since you have agreed that you don't have the competence to do so. But there are others who do; it is not an empty field, but one in which there are many qualified experts. These, generally speaking, know of each other, via their publications, conferences, schools, etc., and there are others, who are less specialized as experts in the area, but nevertheless have the qualifications and judgment to understand what is in question. If you agree that matters of scientific content, validity, notability cannot be decided by popular consensus amongst those without the qualifications to do so, it is best to leave it to those who do to discuss and decide such questions amongst themselves.
The reason why I do not trouble to fix the article is given in my above explanation; it cannot be fixed, and it would take more than fixing to render such self-promotion into a valid criterion for notability. I won't tear apart the article either, because I have no reason to spend the time, or effort, to do such a thing, when my argument for deletion is clear on general grounds, and does not need a more detailed analysis to convince those who have the necessary expertise in the field.
That said, I don't plan to register any further comments until the end of the allotted five day period, and would prefer to see what others, those with the necessary qualifications, have to say. I may then write a brief summary of what I regard to be valid, or invalid arguments that have been expressed, and explain more precisely why the retention of such material is more damaging to Wikipedia's credibility than the mere fact of having another superfluous, self-promoting article in the system. R_Physicist (talk)
  • Keep! But with improvements. I'm the author of the article Myrzakulov equations and I'm not Myrzakulov. My english not enough to improve this my article. So I would like to ask anybody who have a good english in order to improve the article and to keep it. Ngn— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.72.14 (talk) 17:55, March 20, 2008 — 92.46.72.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • I'm gonna' go ahead and bite the bullet here, at least a little. I'm going to work on copyediting and generally cleaning up the page. If anyone with more technical knowledge of the subject could help me with the math itself, that'd help tons. Let's see if we can get a WP:HEY here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done as I'm ever going to be. Still needs a lot of technical work, which I just can't do. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article should be rewritten. It's now a list of equations. It should at the very least read like a review article by the author on this topic. But this deficiency is not a good reason to delete the article. Deletion is only appropriate when an article violates wiki rules in such a fundamental way that it cannot be fixed.
E.g., the article on Heim theory is far more problematic, yet it survived two VFDs. It may look better than this article at first glance, but it is closer to being unacceptable according to the wiki rules. And from a physics point of view it is certainly horrible, because a pseudoscientific theory is given too much respect. However, even these much more serious objections were not good reasons to delete that aticle. I voted to keep it and then rewrote most of it, but it still has severe POV problems. The fact that it can be written up in such a way that it becomes acceptable was the reason why it was kept.
So no, this article should not be deleted. People who do not like it should just make the effort to rewrite it instead of putting it on VFD. Count Iblis (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed above. Benjiboi 01:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a high-priority article, but legitimate. The assertion that Myrzakulov himself created this should be backed up with evidence. People who cite that reason in AfD nominations usually seem to get it wrong. Until evidence is given, the denial alone is sufficient to reject that particular proposed reason for deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review of edit history of the article (Response to request for evidence)

  • Original authorship and anonymous edits. As indicated in the article history page, it was originally created by G.N. Nugmanova. The references given are two joint papers by her, Myrzakulov, and two other authors. She has, in all, three published papers mentioned in the Scientific Citation Index, dated 1997, 1998 and 1999, all of which are jointly with Myrzakulov. She works at the same 'Institute of Physics and Technology', Almaty, Kazakhstan, and is evidently a junior colleague, probably a former student. There are six other preprints by her, posted at the ArXiv, [3] of which two are jointly authored with Myrzakulov, and a third has his name in the title. The first of these, dating from 1994, while she was presumably a student, and probably remained unpublished, may be seen as a preprint posted at the ArXiv [4]. It looks much like a sketch of an early version of this article, with the same coinages. Furthermore, the anonymous postings by the main contributors to this article, from IP addresses 89.218.75.26 89.218.78.249 89.218.75.26 89.218.76.146 92.46.70.181 89.218.68.182 89.218.78.59 92.46.69.25 92.46.69.209 89.218.68.194 89.218.75.34 89.218.76.21 89.218.75.34 89.218.75.34 89.218.78.218 89.218.75.101 212.154.189.114 89.218.75.222 89.218.75.157, as well as the one from 92.46.72.14 by the unsigned contributor to this page who claims to be the author, are all from the same locations, in Alamaty, Kazakhstan and Astana, Kazakhstan, Myrzakulov's alternate working addresses, as may be verified by consulting the ip-address.com locator page [5]. R_Physicist (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resumption of the debate

  • Strong delete. There is a claim that these equations have no particular notability in physics, and no evidence otherwise. Lots of scientists develop equations, but they only become notable when they are widely used by others. I can't see anything to indicate that this is true. That it needs cleanup should have no bearing on whether it should be kept; it was nominated on notability grounds. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edited above. R_Physicist has now given strong evidence of a conflict of interest, which should definitely be taken into account, both as a COI and evidence against notability. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually articles are not accepted for publication in peer reviewed journals if they are not of sufficient interest. And you don't get to talk on a conference either. We really have to judge this in the way the mathematical physics community looks at it which, from my own experience, is a bit different than other branches of physics.
I've written a few articles on Mathematical Physics and I know that my work in that field is quite notable (I've not written any wikipedia articles on these topics). However, this does not translate into a large number of citations. Google would also not give you any clues about notability/importance. I have also written some papers on particle physics. These are i.m.o. less important, but the citation count is much higher and, if you ask Google, you would get the impression that this work is much more important. Count Iblis (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main part of the article (excluding the lead) does not contain any encyclopaedic, or even useful, information. The claim that these formulas are known as "Myrzakulov equations" within the physics community is questionable at best. The lead can serve as a seed for an article on the Landau–Lifshitz equations. Arcfrk (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google Scholar finds about 28 results for "Myrzakulov equations", a number of which are cited by authors other than the 5 writing papers on these equations. Just for information, I'm still not sure where I'm coming down on this article. SamBC(talk) 11:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Very Strong KEEP it matters not how the equations came to have the name. It matters not how the theories have been received within the physics community. The ONLY thing that matters is whether the subject has received multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. This nomination does not assert any valid criteria for deletion, and does make some incredibly bad faith comments that have already been refuted in the pevious AfD. This is both pointy and pointless. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small disagreement regarding Good and Bad Faith

  • Reply. Good faith and bad. So far, the discussion has been at a fairly courteous and responsible level. The last comment most certainly isn't. Good faith means: "Compliance with standards of decency and honesty (American Heritage Dictionary); Bad faith: "With or characterized by intentional deception or dishonesty" (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law). I don't specially care if some unidentifiable contributor decides to use insulting language - there are always such people out there. There is, however, no substance to his accusation. Everything that I have stated is accurate and in good faith. For those who know enough about the scientific content in question, it is a matter of sound judgment and credibility. Therefore, I hope that this one crude contribution will simply be treated by everyone as it deserves - by being ignored. R_Physicist (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "unidentifiable contributor", since I signed my post, and my user page has my real life identity.
Did you try clicking on the icon labelled "about me" on the navigation bar? That's all anyone could want to know about me. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 07:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I was also the administrator who closed the first deletion discussion for this article.
  • Thank you for telling me that. I presume, however, that you expect that communicating this information will increase my respect for you. I am sorry, but if so, you are mistaken; it does rather the opposite, since now I know that the person who likes to use insulting language, and accuse people, without grounds, of "bad faith" is also the administrator who closed the first discussion. That tells me more about the nature of that administrator, but it neither inspires me with respect nor does it give me much further confidence in the process.
Another bad faith assumption. No intimidation intended, mate. My statement was one of surprise that you, as one who presumably read the previous discussion, would recognize me as an interested party. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 07:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now, since you like to make accusations of "bad faith" - how would you characterize the fact that you, as an administrator who closed the first deletion discussion - presumably in the capacity of a "neutral arbitrator" - are entering here as an aggressive participant? And apparently using this intimidating announcement to increase your authority and weight in the debate? Are you perhaps announcing that you are planning also to be the administrator who closes the debate on the present discussion, and hence it is a foregone conclusion? If so, thank you for telling us so after a mere two days of discussion so that I, and all the others who have taken part will know we have been wasting our time in view of the fact that you, an administrator, with your mind made up already, will be deciding the issue in any case. Or should we just place faith in your sense of fairness, and neutrality, and sound judgment, which you have been so aptly demonstrating? Frankly, I would place judgment in your "good faith" at this point only if you stepped out of the debate completely, and declared yourself disqualified for ending the debate, or having any say in the outcome. After what you have said, I would suggest you have no grounds left to claim objectivity, or neutrality - you have been, simply, acting as an aggressive participant, who is now further trying to influence the outcome by announcing yourself an "administrator" who had closed the first discussion, with the implication, obviously, that you could do the same with this one. I am looking forward to learning what a Wikipedia administrator, after demonstrating such gross lack of impartiality, is really entitled, or expected to do.R_Physicist (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being neutral at the time of closing is not an implied oath of forever neutralness. I am not eligible, by my own standards, to close subsequent AfD's for articles that I have previously closed AfD's for. Therefore my participation in this discussion is entirely ethical. The fact that I now have an opinion on the notability of the subject does not mean that I did not close the previous discussion in an impartial manner. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 07:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Six distinct statements in the nomination are clear examples of bad faith. Forget your dictionary definitions and your interpretation on how they should be applied to this discussion, read Wikipedia:Assume good faith; wikipedia's use of this special phrase is what is meant by that phrase when it is used here.
  • I have looked up Wikipedia's article "good faith" and found nothing in it at variance with my notion, or the standard dictionary definition of the term. Perhaps you should have another look at what that article says before you tell others to forget dictionary definitions, and adopt yours. Let me quote you a part if it:
"Accusing others of bad faith
Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack, and in it, the user accusing such claim is not assuming good faith." R_Physicist (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is just plain silly. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 07:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the six bad faith statements are:
  • article seems to have been created...primarily as a vehicle for self-promotion.
  • others, who are well qualified to express an opinion, will do so, and not just the author of the article in question, collaborators and friends.
  • I do find it very suspicious when an author of scientific papers that are not regarded by the expert community as having any distinction or notability chooses such unconventional means for promoting his work
  • primitive self-promotional devices as enshrining them in a wikipaedia article
  • Most people...do not have so little modesty as to overtly try to name an equation after themselves
  • It seems to be primarily motivated by an attempt at self-promotion
Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By listing these assertions, and hopes, I see you feel you have demonstrated them to be prima facie evidence of "bad faith". But I am afraid that, for most people, simply asserting something is not prima facie evidence of anything.
In summary, I would say you have done a very good job of demonstrating where you stand on all of these things. I presume it will be clear to anyone else reading these remarks. R_Physicist (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified to comment I find the previous entry very troubling. Are you saying that being "the administrator who closed the first deletion" makes you more qualified to judge the article based on its scientific merits? I subscribe to the opinion, stated earlier, that this article does little else than to promote an individual who is not recognized by the academic community as the article might suggest, and to create confusion through incomplete and misleading information. Please consult any reputable text in this field and check for yourselves. --Antignom (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to your post below, for my opinion on expert snobbery. I do not believe that being the admin who closed the first debate makes me qualified to comment. I belive that being a person with access to an internet-connected computer makes me qualified to comment. I also do not like your view that any text book that supports this article is disreputable, and any text that supports your view is reputable. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence Fine, then please provide any textbook which reflects the claims of this article. --Antignom (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A return to the main discussion

  • Keep and possibly rename if appropriate. The evidence from the first AfD and has been presented here makes it clear this is more against the contributors than the content. If the article shouldn't be called Myrzakulov equations then make a suggestion and note that Myrzakulov equations will still lead here and will likely still be in the lede as "also known as" if nothing else. Article needs to be improved, no small task, to make it more user-friendly for the rest of the world to understand what this is about and why anyone should care. Not a reason for deletion however. Per AfD, if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. Benjiboi 21:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong DELETE These equations are claimed to be part of the well-developed field of integrable systems, a coherent, structured part of mathematics which provides a clear framework for classification of relevant contributions. As an educated scientist in this area, I can certify that the article in question has little scientific value and is not appropriate under this classification. All respectable texts and review articles support this view. I strongly support the decision to DELETE this article on the grounds of its overall low quality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antignom (talk • contribs) — Antignom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - as a matter of principle(duplicate !vote stricken by Jerry) To address some of the earlier comments: yes, we can and should judge which entry has a valid scientific content, and which is self-promoting nonsense. Not challenging misleading, erroneous entries which claim to be scientific articles is equivalent to giving up the critical review that should underlie all science communications. It is also absurd and disingenuous to expect real experts to correct such an entry for content, thus implicitly validating the author's claims, contradicted by the obvious lack of expertise. --Antignom (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)— Antignom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Side discussion on the need, or lack of need, for Expertise

Wikipedia does not need real experts. We just need people who know how to read and write. The experts can do the research and write the theories themselves, other experts can peer-review their theories, then journalists and authors can write about the experts and their theories, and then common folks like me can write articles about the subject. Everyone in the world is welcome to participate at that point, even children. No experts needed. This snobbery about only qualified people should comment here, and collaborators are not welcome is pure unadulterated nonsense. Experts should go off somewhere and be experts, and common, normal, ordinary, non-special, everyday, average wikipedians should build wikipedia. Of course, experts can also be wikipedians... I have expertise in some things... everyone does. But we don't have to restrict our contributions to our fields of expertise. And we can not discourage non-experts from participating. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Truth and opinion I agree that everyone should be able to say (write) whatever they wish about any subject, with no restrictions. However, science-related articles do require expertise. It is not about "snobbery", but about true or false. You can state your opinion that the Earth is flat, and write a Wikipedia article about it. If, however, you claim that your opinion was recognized by the scientific community, by due critical process, then you are misleading the readers and cast serious doubts about the validity of any Wikipedia entry. --Antignom (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. But if some other complete nutbag writes that the earth is flat, and calls it Professor Nutbag's Earth Flatness Theory, and it gains attention enough to have 5 books written about it and peer-reviewed journals. Then I can create the "Nutbag's flat earth theory" article, and all of the geological experts who come by with scientific data about how round the earth is would have no purpose in the discussion. Wikipedia is not about publishing the truth. It is about writing about notable subjects in a neutral way with adequate references in reliable sources to verify the content of the article. We do not publish original research, so we don't need experts. We are a tertiary source, and we do not care if the theories we write about are right, wrong, seriously flawed, downright ignorant or otherwise really really bad. We only care that the subject is notable. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is very relevant indeed. It means that if an adequate number of people start a "cooperative" of mutual referencing, they can generate arbitrary Wikipedia entries, which should be considered valid according to your definition. That's very amusing, but also makes the whole enterprise irrelevant to those who do care about the truth - because it can get drowned by countless such arbitrary entries.--Antignom (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will be okay, really. We have nearly 2.4 Million articles in English alone. I think if a consortium conspires to get a fringe theory article into wikipedia through elaborate means, that includes having books written and articles in papers and journals, then they will not only have tricked themselves past our notability gate, they will have actually created notability. Notability is created everyday. And it is okay. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 06:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add, that of course any sourced criticism is welcome in a fringe theory article and is welcome in this article. (Though of course, no one has suggested that this article is putting forward a fringe theory, just a fringe way of naming things.) "All of the geological experts who come by with scientific data about how round the earth is would have no purpose in the discussion" is about the hypothetical discussion about deletion of the article on flat earth theory. Hypothetical, since I suspect the geological experts would actually want to keep the article to put in their criticism.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Return to the main discussion

  • Delete The question is whether the sources are actually independent of him, and I think that almost none of them are. I would like a quote that they are referred to by this name in a review article by an independent party in a major journal, and I do not see this. For yourself to call even a significant discovery by your own name does not mean anything unless this is the generally accepted name. DGG (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as a matter of common sense, if a particular scientific theory in a very active field is published on almost entirely by one group, and a few scattered other people, it is probably not generally notable. If, as you say it is not yet generally written about because it is still new, it is almost by definition not yet notable. This is especially true for calling something after one's self. If X and his students are almost the only people who call something--even something notable-- X's Law, or X's Equations, then that name is not generally used and is almost certainly self-puffery. Newton's Laws are not named after him because he & his associates called it so. The same goes for everything else in the world. You can publish any number of papers referring to yourself, and it won't get you anywhere. that's what we mean by substantial 3rd party coverage--not you and your friends. I cannot say for sure whether this work is scientifically important, but I can say for sure that the name is not widely used, and that would hold even if it the papers were published in a language I understood even less of. DGG (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That all makes an excellent reason to rename/refocus rather than delete. Once the SPAs drama, possibly including the nom on this, is sorted out we really need experts on the subject to weigh in on what is most appropriate. Benjiboi 11:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and your suggested names is? Based on discussion here, I dont think they're considered distinct enough to have a generally accepted name.DGG (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck - changed to procedural keep below. Delete without prejudice - I see nothing establishing that this gigantic list of equations are actually important, regardless of whether or not they show up in Myrzakulov's papers. I vote delete in spite of the fact that I find the nominator's rationale highly inappropriate, grossly speculative, and very inflammatory. If these equations are of particular note, but under the wrong name, it may make more sense to merge or rename (delete struck to emphasize that this content is presumably good-faith/notable and simply misplaced or overemphasized by being placed here). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with a view to a possible merge or redirect if experts consider these equations to be of secondary interest the field. The foregrounding of alleged conflict of interest in the nomination goes against best practice at AfD - it is no reason to decide against having some article on the topic. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the trouble to look at this. I am not familiar with what the conventions of "best practice at AfD" are, since I am just a working researcher scientist, not a Wikipedia expert. But I don't believe that the emphasis has been on "conflict of interest", at least not by me; this was a term used by another user. The data that I provided regarding the origin of the article and the numerous anonymous updates was in reply to a very legitimate request on the part of another user for proof that these really were from the person after whom this article, and equations had been named, or his immmediate entourage.
Like the others who have also "voted" for deletion, I have given as the reasons arguing for this deletion: 1) The fact that the article primarily presents material that is, from the viewpoint of the field, of very obscure interest, if any at all (i.e. "lack of notability", in Wikipedia terms) and 2) that its presentation as a list of equations carrying the name of its author is completely contrary to "best practices" in science, which accord names to equations only if the scientific community, not the individual in question, feels that that this recognition is merited. (This also falls within the Wikipedia criteria for deletion: advertisement / self-promotion.) There is a third reason as well, that I had intended to mention only in my summary, and will do so there in detail, and that is the impact that such self-promotional articles have on other articles, that are of more central importance to users of Wikipedia, when such self-promoting authors or friends of theirs do the secondary harm of peppering these other articles with links and reference to theirs. When this is done systematically, but always under an anonymous identity, one begins, indeed, to have doubts on the legitimacy of these actions. This might again sound like an accusation of "lack of good faith", but how else can one characterize such conduct?R_Physicist (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI explains our concept of "conflict of interest", which is the broad term we use to include self-promotion and other ways that people add material that puts their outside interests ahead of Wikipedia's. While this is a concern, that relates to quality of content, not the topic itself. The topic should be discussed on its own merits, regardless of who started the article. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As someone who has worked in this area for over thirty years, I agree strongly with the original proposal by "R_physicist" that this is merely an attempt to use Wikipedia to try to drum up personal publicity for a long list of equations without interest to even specialists in this area. It is the equivalant of vanity publishing, and only serves to detract from the sensible and well-written articles which are available on this general topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.100.45 (talk • contribs) — 82.69.100.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete I too have been working in the area for more than thirty years, and I have never heard about "Myrzakulov equations". This is just an attempt of self-promotion. Keeping the article in Wikipedia would do a very bad service to the mathematical community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.222.133 (talk • contribs) — 129.31.222.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete The article in question contains very little useful information, which could be included in an appropriate form under a review of equations of Landau - Lifshitz type. Most of the article has no informative value and constitutes a clear case of self-promotion (in this case, for a small group of people). --Proscience (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC) — Proscience (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Named Equations It goes without saying that the nomenclature "Myrzakulov equations" is not recognized in the scientific community and that there is no basis for this person's claim otherwise. This type of equations can be referred to as Landau-Lifshitz type equations, if a name must be given. --Proscience (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invalid delete request. Keep with improvements. (Duplicate, struck by User:Cheeser1) Yes you are right. These Myrzakulov equations (ME) and other more known important magnetic equation - socalled Ishimori equation (IE) are Landau-Lifshitz type equations. But ME and IE are not Landau-Lifshitz equation (LLE). And all of these magnetic equations (LLE, IE, ME and other magnetic equations) describe nonlinear dynamics of magnets that is continuous spin systems in different physical cases. In particular they describe nonlinear waves in magnets (solitons, vortices, dromions and so on) propogating in magnets as different physical approximates. Also I would like to note that in general LLE is not integrable. At the same time IE and some ME are integrable. Also note that integrable and notintegrable equations are physically and mathematically different equations in nature. In this context different names of the magnetic equations are logically correct. Of course LLE, which is ebtablished in 1935, is famous fundamental equation. IE is constructed in 1984 and is known and more or less studied. ME [if exactly just one of representative of ME, namely, the Myrzakulov I (M-I) equation] for the first time were publishes just 10 years ago (1997) in international journal and less known and less studied. IE and ME are not particular cases of LLE. Finally I would like ask you, dear Proscience, please correct english of these my comments (of course if not difficult for you). Ngn 92.46.69.162 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Reply I am afraid not only your English needs to be corrected, but logic as well. The Nonlinear Schrodinger Equation (NS) may be generalized by multiplying the quartic term by a scalar (typically, real number between plus and minus one). It stops being integrable, and has several distinct properties, but we do not call it a new name because of that - it remains an equation of NS-type. --Proscience (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to criticize someone's English, it might not hurt to be able to spell "typically" correctly. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't; I was asked (invited) to do so. And I have no intention whatsoever to do it. For more relevant contributions, see the recent reply a few paragraphs below. --Proscience (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fairly rude response that doesn't even have much to do with the matter at hand. This is a deletion discussion. Please confine your contributions here (which are, indeed, your only contributions) to the matter at hand. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. My poor english says that I need in your help (so please and I would like ask you correct english of my comments);
2. My logic says that I can't reply you symmetrically. So this my asymmetric reply means and may be proved (I suppose) that my logic is more or less normal ... . Ngn 92.46.69.162 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. This is an example of someone with no claim to even the slightest understanding of the meaning of the article, or the context, admonishing a known expert in the field, during a very pertinent exchange with the author of the article, that he should stick to the "matter at hand". The fact is, Proscience was exactly addressing the matter at hand, and using a simple analogous example, the Nonlinear Schrodinger equation, known to everyone in the field, to illustrate his point. The discussion was cut off by this rude interruption, followed by the sinister remark that followed - introduced by User:Scarian - someone with the authority of an administrator!, (followed by the nodding approval of this same user).R_Physicist (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - User:Proscience is a new account. Possibly suspicious. ScarianCall me Pat 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This and others duly noted on talk page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • About your arguments:
a) may be better use NSE than NS for nonlinear Schrodinger equation;
b) in my next comments I will present 3 magnetic equations to compare ... . Ngn 92.46.69.162 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am using the notation used by professor Zakharov himself (at least up until February 29, when I last saw him). Now, to address more substantial issues: the user Ngn claims to belong to the scientific community. As such, he/she is subject to higher standards of education (and, yes, of logic of the argument) than the average reader is. This is the point of my comment above, which was not meant as an insult. There are two possibilities: either Ngn gives up the claim that the article in question has any scientific standing (in which case, this topic will cease to interest me), or he/she agrees to carry on this debate at the level expected from a scientist. If neither option is pursued, then I expect that my colleagues and I will stop contributing, for obvious reasons, but also that we might describe this situation in other media, of clear relevance to scientists, in order to expose what we perceive to be a blatant attempt to self-promotion, in a vacuum of constructive scientific scrutiny. --Proscience (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop it now. Both of you. You've made your points in this AfD. Cut the side-commentary/bickering. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Cheeser1: this is my last contribution to this topic. I do not appreciate the tone of your commentary made at 00:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC), although I am convinced it was made with the best intentions. If you read (again) my previous entry, you should notice that it is objective and relevant to the issue. Then again, there is a limit to how much time I can afford to spend contributing here. I will check again the status of this discussion when it is over. --Proscience (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is the most blatant instance of the use of rude, insulting intimidation to halt one of the few pertinent exchanges between the author of the article and an expert in the subject! The peremptory command to stop the discussion had the effect, not only of ending the exchange, but intimidating [[User:Proscience|Proscience] to withdraw completely from the debate. Note the courtesy and restraint of the final remark by Proscience, who is even here willing to assume the best intentions on the part of this user, when he has just been bullied to the point of withdrawing from the discussion! R_Physicist (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A serious critique by the nominator for deletion - and a challenge to participants in the Wikipedia community

  • Absurdity upon absurdity. Self appointed pundits who have no scientific competence whatsoever casting aspersions upon precise and pertinent remarks by experts in the field; then insulting them with their derisory remarks and even imperiously commanding them to desist from expressing themselves! "Administrators" with no other visible qualifications than the fact that they have made thousands of edits to Wikipedia, and have attained to certain special powers through a questionable process of scrutiny within this self-referential setting. The latter, or at least some of them, apparently feel entitled to register totally unfounded, intimidating and derisory remarks like "...a new account. Possibly suspicious." that would be worthy of thought police, to redefine the English language so as to comply with their notions of "Wikipedia usage" and "good practice", and to overtly express their hostility to anything that might be viewed as "expert knowledge". Users hiding behind anonymous pseudonyms casting aspersions on the integrity of highly respected, well-known scientists, who have no other motive than to set the record straight regarding scientific content. The same users reorganizing the material in arbitrary tendentious ways, to suit their tastes, deleting legitimate contributions, hiding them in boxes, transferring them to other pages, and reordering so as to lose all logic or sense in the sequence of contributions and edits; in short, creating an anarchic circus, all within view of these "Administrators", who do nothing to intervene.
Is this science fiction, fantasy, an "other-world" nightmare or reality.? What is Wikipedia all about? The tyranny of the ignorant? I am very curious what all the threatening remarks, gratuitous insults and assaults by the uneducated upon the integrity of the knowledgeable leads up to. Is this a serious process, or one in which a small number of Wikipedia "insiders" act out fantasies of power and importance, while those who, in the real world, are highly qualified scientists and professionals devoted to advancing our actual state knowledge, are silenced by threats, intimidation, and manipulative tactics, while administrators who believe that "expertise" is irrelevant, do nothing to intervene? Is it that only Wikipedia experience and status has any importance in this environment?
I have a feeling the outcome of this debate will have more significance for Wikipedia than merely whether this poor article is kept or deleted. If the questionably empowered class of "Administrators" turns out to be the only real decision makers, wielding the power to overrule all others, then all depends on them. If they choose to ignore the advice of those who are best placed to provide expert opinion on the substance of the article in question, and decide simply according to their own notions, even though they have no knowledge, but prefer to heed the "all-inclusive" principle, or the views of other users who are equally ignorant of the subject, the outcome is meaningless, and the implication for the reliability of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge is clear.
Having said this, I expect to receive a barrage of attacks, threats, intimidating remarks, citations for violations of rules, aspersions cast on my character, integrity, competence, etc. from those seasoned "insiders" who feel insulted or threatened by these self-evident remarks. But are there also those who believe in the value of Wikipedia and hold another view? Are there enough of those who do have an adequate respect for knowledge, qualifications, real-word competence and, simply, the truth, who have a say in how Wikipedia is run and decisions are made to tilt the balance? I am curious to see who actually holds sway in this strange setting, that claims to represent "the masses" and knowledge simultaneously. R_Physicist (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the main discussion

  • Wikipedia and the real world As I promised earlier, I will not add further comments related solely to the article in question. Instead, I find that I have no choice but to raise everybody's attention on a much more important aspect of this debate. The proponents of deletion (myself included) do not dispute that the authors in question are legitimate scientists, rather their unacceptable practice of raising awareness about their work through a Wikipedia article, at odds with established standards valid in the academic world. The fact that average Wikipedia contributors/readers cannot judge any scientific mater, and must rely on the advice given by specialists, is well illustrated by - funny enough - a Wikipedia article: [6] . Note again that I am not claiming that we have a case of scientific fraud (as in the Bogdanov Affair), or a hoax (as in the Sokal Affair), nonetheless this situation is similar in spirit: the controversy cannot be settled without the intervention of those with special qualifications. Along those lines, the pressure at which the user R_Physicist (whose qualifications are undeniable) has been subjected by some administrators, are nothing but detrimental to Wikipedia. I remind you that the Wikipedia side of the Bogdanov Affair ended with a determination made by a higher court (in the Wikipedia universe), and led to a complete ban applied to the accused party. Even if this will not happen in this case, the dispute is likey to spill outside of these pages, leading to a kind of "notability" no honest scientist would ever want. Moreover, it may move other scientists, who would otherwise have considered to contribute to this "encyclopedia" (quotation marks because real encyclopedias usually invite experts to write topical articles), to change their minds (I most definitely feel that way). In that event, the biggest loser will be Wikipedia itself. --Proscience (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! : not notable enough now, maybe in 10 years (?). As of 2008 this scientist is no more notable than the average scientist publishing an article. This sort of self-promotion is to be strongly discouraged, even more than writing an entry on oneself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.237.72 (talk • contribs) — 76.68.237.72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Look, the topic here is a collection of equations, not a scientist. Please discuss the notability of the equations. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made a research on the matter and reviewed the positions of each party. I'm not an expert on the subject but I have some knowledge on how things work in the field of theoretical physics. It's a strange and confusing area, as many wikipedians have probably found out by now... I have a good knowledge of Wikipedia policy too. There is something very important in WP:N that makes the difference here, I cite: "...it has received significant coverage in...". In this context, it means that mere mentions or cross references are not enough. I see some non trivial developments by the author and related, but no substantial coverage by other sources. They are thousands of "<name of one or several physicists or mathematicians> equations", for example, the Witten–Dijkgraaf–Verlinde–Verlinde equations or the Veltman-Bell equations, just try the name of a physicist and equation after that on google. Of course, only a few are notable w.r.t WP:N. In response to comments above, it's always possible to reduce the field of study so that they become notable there but I don't see the interest of doing so. Hence I support Deletion, no rename, no merge, it's not in renaming an article that we make its subject notable! Even if the nominator has a coi, it doesn't affect the issue of the afd if consensus is formed that the article should be deleted. CenariumTalk 02:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted opinion. Earlier today, I posted an entry very relevant to the issue of this discussion, indicating several possible consequences (outside of Wikipedia, as well as inside) of the attitudes we see displayed here. The comment was entirely erased by administrators, who in turn accused me of some strange wiki-crime that I do not bother to investigate. Please restore my comment. The administrator may not care about the fallout of this debate, but I'm sure the authors will. --Proscience (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not confuse the actions of Cheeser1 with that of an admistrator. All of the unwarranted deletions, transferences, reductions to invisible boxes, re-orderings of material, have been his, single-handed mischief, as has been the irresponsible accusations that the contributions of several qualified scientists to this discussion are the result of some kind of nefarious conspiracy, or multiple identity hoax. All of this is the work of anonymously "identified" user Cheeser1, not an adminstrator. R_Physicist (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your post was moved to the talk page because it was not directly relevant to this deletion discussion. If you intend on making declarations as to what happened, please make sure you know what's going on. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Cheeser1, who has been systematically moving, altering or deleting legitimate user contributions to this page has no more authority than any other user, perhaps less, in view of his conduct, to make such remarks, as though he were the arbiter of what may, or may not appear on this page. He has designated this authority to himself, and doesn't cease to vandalize the valid contributions of others, as he has done here. I encourage all users to simply go to the "history" page, and, systematically, undo any such tampering with your contributions that Cheeser1 has, without your authorization, done. The easiest method is just to use "undo". Otherwise, you could just re-post, or copy and paste the contributions, if he has arbitrarily moved it to the "talk: (discussion) page. For the time being, this seems like the simplest method to combat this damage. Meanwhile, I am looking into administrative methods to neutralize his mischief-making. R_Physicist (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note, and maybe a clean start Before I get into the substance of what I want to say, please note that I am not arguing for or against deletion in this debate, and I doubt I will. I just want to clarify a few things.

  1. Wikipedia does not require any degree of relative importance or notability in a field, only a certain degree of absolute notability, as defined by wikipedia policies and guidelines.
  2. Wikipedia also doesn't care too much about off-wiki consequences, except where any user is using wikipedia to their own ends to the detriment of wikipedia, as defined in the conflict-of-interest policy.
  3. We also don't care, as a matter of policy, about strict objective accuracy or truth, only verifiability.
  4. This is not the place to debate or argue to change these factors. Do that on the relevant policy/guideline pages and/or the village pump.

This is not a keep or delete argument, rather a few points for people to bear in mind. Address these points, or other valid reasons for deletion, in your comments and arguments, please. SamBC(talk) 13:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as non-notable self-promotion, due to a lack of significant discussion in secondary sources independent of the author of these equations. To establish notability the article needs to cite a general review or textbook that describes Myrzakulov equations. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Here I would like to present, just as examples, 4 representatives of magnetic equations in 2 1 dimensions. They are as follows.
1. Ishimori equation (IE) [1984]
2. Isotropic Landau-Lifshitz equation (LLE) = Heisenberg ferromagnet equation (HFE) [1935]:
3. Myrzakulov I equation (M-I) [1997]:
4. Mikhailov-Yaremchuk equation (MYE) [1982]
As you can see (if even you are not expert in this area) these 4 magnetic equations are very different and are independly each to other. Moreover IE (1), M-I (3) and MYE (4) are integrable, at the same time LLE=HFE (2) is nonintegrable in the soliton theory sense. Additionally these equations were constructed by different authors. This is why we use for them different names. Note that they describle nonlinear dynamics of magnets but in the different physical cases.Ngn 92.46.69.162 (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, not only because it gave me an idea of what the thing is about, but also because it hints at how the article could be improved, by getting rid of the obvious WP:UNDUE listing of all these equations. The problem I see now is Wikipedia's rule "No Original Research". "Moreover IE (1), M-I (3) and MYE (4) are integrable, at the same time LLE=HFE (2) is nonintegrable in the soliton theory sense." - can this be sourced in some way or other? If so, you have your article, I think - in both senses: we have a good text to build on and deletion does not look like a serious option. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think concerns about "self-promotion" on Wikipedia are exaggerated. I have no problem with deletion of articles consisting of autobiographies of semi-literate people who've never done anything. (I've seen a few of those.) And there is a legitimate concern that when editing one's own biography or an article about one's own discoveries or inventions or writings or exploits, one is tempted to be unfair, giving oneself more credit than one deserves. But I think as long as the article's content is restricted to what an impartial person would write, it should be allowed. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preparing to sum up

  • Summary to follow. This is to recall to all who are interested in the main point of this discussion that the five day period normally allotted will be ending tomorrow. Therefore, all those who feel that there is something pertinent to add, should try to do so, preferably as a summary, before then. As I far as I can see, despite a number of disruptive episodes (and we can perhaps expect a few more still, before the time has elapsed), there has been an opportunity for all those actually interested in the issue at stake to express their views, and an intelligent summary of the two positions is now called for. I am planning to write a summary of the argument for deletion. I would like to invite G.N. Nugmanova to present a summary of her argument for its retention. R_Physicist (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, we wouldn't need a dozen sections or a "please repeat your rationale here" summary section if you hadn't logjammed this page with your "wackopedia" essays, and refused to remove them when several editors objected to how muddled and irrelevant this AfD had become. You still jam your rants and polemical essays on Wikipedia back into this AfD. Look at other AfDs, closed ones, and tell me, do any of these look like this discussion?? (Answer: no.) --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to make my point as clearly as I can. There haven't been all that many good reasons to delete in the massive debate above, mostly a ton of relatively off-topic debates about various things that AfD isn't the venue for (I'll be skipping all of that, read it if you want). The issue of WP:COI has been raised, but I've fully copyedited the article for at the very least a neutral tone. Notability isn't all that well established, but at the very worst it sounds like the author himself is notable, so merge is probably a better option. The name's been argued over, but that's no reason to delete. Mostly, however, my point is that the article can be improved, which is about the best reason not to delete I can come up with. I've done all I can, and I'd be more than happy to continue to work on it with anyone who'll help me. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will point out that, based on the comments and opinions of several others and the longstanding policies we have (ie WP:SOAP, WP:NPA, etc), I have attempted thoroughly to stave off the disruptive element in this debate. I have given up. A pathetic display by someone who chastises others for their unscientificness, immaturity, etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... Was that directed at me? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? No. I was just pointing out that these "relatively off-topic debates about various things that AfD isn't the venue for" were repeatedly moved or otherwise organized (in the most generous AGF way possible, at least at first) by me, in order to try to keep this debate going smoothly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hokay, just makin' sure. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (procedural) - since we're, apparently, supposed to repeat our rationales here or summarize our points, I am changing my !vote to "keep" on procedural grounds. R Physicist has so throughly disrupted this discussion that I believe it cannot be considered properly by any closing admin. I think the only solution is to open a fresh AfD immediately upon closing this one, and limiting R physicist to a single, concise, germane, non-polemical, comment (and another single such comment in reply to any other user's opinion on the matter). --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear lifebaka many thanks for your editing work on the article. Your editing work and your comments in this AfD were constructive in my opinion. Yes the article (in the present form) needs some improvements in contents, in form and in English (It is clear). Hope that EnWiki community will keep the article and equations among many other "equations-heavy articles on theoretical physics and mathematics" existing in EnWiki. And will give us the corresponding chance to edit it. I HOPE!!! ... If it will happen of course I will be happy jointly with you (and with others) to edit and improve the article. Ngn 89.218.75.202 (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unequivocally. A small part of the article could be included (with changes) in a review of Landau-Lifshitz equations. I think the suggestion to limit anyone's contribution to a "single, [...] non-polemical, comment" is extremely subjective, and therefore, pointless. --Proscience (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - this section, apparently, is for users to repeat their rationale (R physicist refuses to deviate from the awkward, nonstandard style he has pushed onto this page, and has demanded that users repeat their rationales here to "sum up" what would be a short list of concise rationales - like any AfD - were it not for his polemical essays). In light of this, this section will contain some (but perhaps not all) duplicate !votes. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above remark is both tendentious and off-target, as has been all the input from the user Cheeser1, who has been the main source of inappropriate remarks and manipulation in this debate. I have not suggested that "users repeat their rationales", I have only said that if there were any new, pertinent remarks to be added, this should be done before the debate closes. I added that "I am planning to write a summary of the argument" for deletion, and I invited the author to do the same with regard to the case for its retention. R_Physicist (talk)
    • Coming from the guy who has no freaking clue how AfDs work, let's just pretend you didn't open your mouth and make yourself look even more foolish. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • More abusive remarks, true to form. It is time for this to halt, don't you think?, and let the discussion be closed in a civilized manner. Isn't there any responsible administrator who could intervene to stop this childish, but endless abuse? R_Physicist (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • While Cheeser1 was somewhat uncivil in his way of putting it, and with all due respect, you clearly don't have any clear idea of how AfDs work. There is not a closing argument/summing up by the deleter and the creator, nor is there generally any conceivable need for it. The closing admin doesn't count votes, but nor do they weigh arguments – they are supposed to judge a consensus, taking into account the validity of arguments, based on policy. This is why we have bolded '!votes', a term that indicates that there's a similarity between these and actual votes, but that we don't just count votes. I think Cheeser1's incivility is largely caused by your dogged failure to listen to and/or understand when people try to explain to you how you're doing things wrong. By wrong, I mean contradictory to policy, guidelines, and general practice on Wikipedia. SamBC(talk) 15:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as no consensus and immediately renominate with one or more admins keeping an eye on things – this has gotten completely out of hand, is impossible to follow, and needs doing again from scratch, preferably in the usual format. SamBC(talk) 13:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already voted to keep above. Reading all the comments that have been written since I posted my last comment (in particular by R physicist and Proscience), I can only say that the there are no grounds for deletion. It would have been different if the subject of the article were "Prof. Dr. Myrzakulov" and not the equations he has published about. The fact that this article names these equations as "Myrzakulov equations" which R physicists, Proscience and others have disputed as inappropriate, is nothing more than a content dispute. The fact that the article only gives a long lists of equations without properly discussing them is also a content dispute. Nothing would have stopped the editors from rewriting this article or perhaps redirecting it to the article on the Landau-Lifshitz equations.
  • About the self promotion aspect, I can say that I agree that this is indeed a problem with this article. But then, why not just intervene by editing the article? I note that R physicist and Proscience, both experts in integrable models, have put in quite some time discussing deletion of the article here. So, they could have used their time better by fixed this problem (as it exists according to them, others do not have to agree 100% with them) by editing the article, perhaps changing it so much that a change of title is warranted. That could have led to an edit war and then some adminstrator would have intervened. But, at the end of the day, wikipedia would have been better off. Count Iblis (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the wacky essays and author's votes were discounted, the result would be a clear delete with questionable article title and notability. The closing admin possibly shouldn't fully discount the essays, even if they are a clear violation of AfD guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if wacky is meant to characterize the original title, or the contents of the essay, but no matter. I'm also not sure what the "author's votes" means. My understanding was that, in any case, the decision is not merely a matter of "vote counting" (although regarding the numbers, you clearly are right) but weighing up the value of the arguments presented. Please note that there has only been one "essay". The other interpolated discussions were: 1) A summary, in response to a request by user "Michael Hardy", of the evidence for the self-referential origin of the article, via an analysis of edit histories and outside sources; 2) an exchange between user "Jerry", who announced he had been the admin to have closed the previous debate, while taking a very aggressive position in the present one, and myself, regarding his use of the term "bad faith"; 3) another extended exchange between "Jerry" and "Antignom" in which "Jerry"'s hostility towards "expert input" was spelled out. R_Physicist (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question and a comment. There have been, by my count, at least six admins who have regisyered their opinions in this discussion. Who, in the end, is the "closing admin"? And how is this decided? Also, am I correct in my assumption that the discussion ends today? This is the fifth day since the nomination was made, but I noticed that some such debates are extended beyond this time. I certainly don't believe such an extension is needed. There are also no reasons for leaving it again as "inconclusive", or starting again at another time. A huge number of opinions have been heard, and simply adding to the numbers will not increase the clarity. A relatively brief, precise summary, both by myself as nominator for deletion, and the author of the article, of the reasons raised for deletion, and against, are all that should be needed. R_Physicist (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An uninvolved admin comes along and closes it, not any who've commented already. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Today on "Super Tuesday" there is not yet a consensus either way. So, the decision will be made by "superadministrators" who may not take into account all the votes here, some time later. Count Iblis (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Was originally neutral, but having read this discussion, I have changed my opinion. The nominator's rants and personal attacks on Jerry and Cheeser1 have convinced me that we should give this article the benefit of the doubt, because this may lead the nominator to rethink their attitude, whereas deletion may reinforce their disruptive behaviour. Not a standard AfD argument, but I believe it would be in the best interests of Wikipedia. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we dont close based on the manners of the participants, but the merits of the article. But given some of the stuff above, the proper course for a discussion such as this is to relist it. Once the topic of discourse has gotten so far away from the actual subject, a keep or delete closure will equally cause problems later. I have my own opinion on the merits, so I am not going to do this, but I urge some yet more uninvolved admin to either relist or close as no consensus.DGG (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear SamBC. I respect your view. But in our non standard case I not agree with you. Please
a) not close my article as no consensus
b) not renominate it.

Reasons: I with my article were in 3 "World Wars". Please see my article wikihistory:

1. "First World War": for the first time I created it in RuWiki. There it deleted with the help of my two "friends".
2. "Second World War": second time I created same article in EnWiki. In this case there was more democratic audience. And we had some perspective. But in the end with the help of my "old friends" from RuWiki we obtained "no consensus".
3. "Third World War": One of users send us (I and my article) to 2nd nomunation. In this case just one moment is very nice: today I hope this War will finish.
So my "famous" article 3 times was in "World War". We tired and want take some rest. But now you want send us to "Fourth World War"? I'm afraid that the results and participants of the next War will be same. Ngn 89.218.75.202 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear EnWikipedians, God given you chance 2 times (2 AfD) to solve the dentiny (fate?) of my article. But you can not use these chances and not solve in fact a little not world problem. My suggestion is as follows. For the third time I would like ask God and you, dear users, the dentiny (fate) of the article give me and other editors which ready to improve it. May be this is one of solution of the problem? Ngn 89.218.75.202 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Myrzakulov_equations_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1144625553"