Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamari attractor

Add links
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 delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamari attractor[edit]

Tamari attractor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are a handful of references listed in this article - the substantive ones are all books by Ben Tamari, who appears to have also written this article. Those books are self published by Mr. Tamari under the name 'Ecometry Ltd' - the title of his first book. He also lists a book by Julien C. Sprott, but the Sprott text is online and searchable, and does not mention Tamari or Tamari attractors at all. Google scholar turns up only a few trivial mentions. I think this article fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Article is essentially an orphan, linked only to the page on the software Tamari wrote. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Tamari attractor (with the Economic Simulator) is application of the theory developed in my book "Conservation and Symmetry Laws and Stabilization Programs in Economics" (1997). The book included in the bibliography of Gyorgy Darvas (2007) "SYMMETRY", p. 437, Birkhauser. And Volkhard Krech and Marion Steinicke (2010) "Dynamics in the History of Religions between Asia and Europe in Past and Present Times" p. 33, Leiden Brill. also in http://web.richmond.k12.va.us/Portals/47/assets/1-2011%20Yale%20Units.pdf#page=153 p. 155. also in http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2044577 working paper. http://www.sinancanan.net.tr/2011/01/kaos-karmasklk-bilimi-ve-yeni-bilimsel.html . The theory is based (not only, for example the feedback/pricing equation design reading Wiener N.(1954) "The Human Use...") on the book: Sato and Ramachandran (1990) "Conservation Laws and Symmetry: Applications to Economics and Finance", Kluwer AP. Quote from my book p. 47 "...in the future, the economy of the USA is expected to face a similar change to that which has been forecast for the Japanese economy from a previous examination (Tamari 1990, p. 232). that is the economy of the USA, if it continues on its current path, will face a significant slowdown". My theory is a new one and needs time, therefore the article should not be deleted - Ben Tamari 27-09-2012. (Ben Tamari (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Tamari (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the Krech and Steinicke reference. I'll quote it here: 'Attractor models are now also being applied in social sciences Cf., for example Ben Tamari' That is the totality of the discussion of Tamari attractors in that book. This is an example of trivial coverage - these types of sources do not help build the case for notability. - MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As someone who is deep in the academic world, The theory which stands here is of the kind that might fail the judgment of reviewers for grants as "Orphans" due to its innovative ideas - This is the basic error of many reviewers. When a grant proposal submitted, it is needed to be innovative but also to show it "holds water". An idea which is too inventive, might fail due to the fact that no one have ever published anything about it.. but then, anything which is new to science, at the time of invention, have only few or sometimes none at all references. Of course, if there are new terms in this theory, or the theory is named by the author, any reference prior to the new idea publication will not include the new term. The Tamari attractor, and the theory which is based on is indeed new. But as new it might be, it still have some citations. It is not solitary, and it is based not on the books but also on previous works. Just like 3rd floor of a building always relays on the 2nd and the first floors, which they, in their own time relays on the foundation of the building- and so on. Therefore, I would add some references to back the theory, which is already published and cited. For example:

  • Burmeister, E. and A.R. Dobell, (1970) "Mathematical Theories of Economic Growth" Macmillan.
  • Gilmor, R., (1981) "Catastrophe Theory for Scientists and Engineers" John Wiley and Sons, NY.
  • Guckenheimer, J. and P. Holmes, (1987) "Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical Systems and Bifurcations of Vector Fields." Springer-Verlag. NY.

And many more.

Dr. Doron Burshtain — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheElectroChemist (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this is a new theory, as stated by Mr Tamari above, then how can it be discussed in books published in 1970, 1981 and 1987? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • answer: The basic principle of Scientific theory and research relays on several understandings and concepts.
Two of them are:
a. admit that you don't know, otherwise- why to develop a new theory?
b. based on previous theories and concepts, build the new theory. After all we can't invent everything.
i.e. any NEW theory should be based on previous understandings (even if it is only as contradict, or just an add up).
In science, in many cases, an add-up of a previous knowledge, is not the sum of all but gives us in many cases a whole new
look on things.
Therefore, the somewhat new Tamari Attractor, is based on previous works (which should be citied in order to explain some of the previous understandings) , which did not see the picture as Ben Tamari sees it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheElectroChemist (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When the "somewhat new" Tamari Attractor has been discussed and vetted in the standard literature it will become notable. Until that time it can only be considered WP:OR, and so, not appropriate for Wikipedia. I stand by my previous recommendation to delete. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you do not consider a valid ISBN for the author books (and its presence at the USA congress library)
validating them as a "standard literature"? Or is it to your opinion that only if well cited it becomes valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.172.216 (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note to the 2nd paragraph of the Wikipedia "N.O.R" definition: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged." I believe that the Tamari attractor, since it is published, and please note that the source exists in a reliable location even if not challenged, is a valid Wikipedia article due to that. i.e. the theory itself is published, it is located in a reliable location (USA congress library), even if not yet actually attributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.172.216 (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs don't mean anything, it just means that the self publisher has paid a fee of around $300. It is not enough that sources 'exist', we need to have sources that were written independently of the article subject, and that are about the article subject. None of the sources proposed in this discussion are those two things. See the guideline on notability for details. - MrOllie (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as non-notable, as the refs are self-published works or too early. Serious COI concerns as the same person seems to be behind these refs, the theory and the article. So no evidence anyone other than that person has thought this notable enough to comment on.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not demonstrate notability; lack of reliable third party sources; apparent COI. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems that those who talked about a "lack of reliable third party sources" are (totaly) wrong.

a simple search at the "Google Scholar" finds quite a few published articles and notes dealing with the Tamari attractor which are not connected to the publisher:

  • 1. Jaeyoo Choy; JOURNAL OF THE CHUNGCHEONG MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY

Volume 22, No. 3, September 2009 (http://www.ccms.or.kr/data/pdfpaper/jcms22_3/22_3_593.pdf)

(DOI: 10.1080/13216597.2007.9674706; http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13216597.2007.9674706) In Reference #3, the Tamari attractor, together with Hénon, Rössler, Lorenz Attractors are all called "Strange attractors"

  • 4. Volkhard Kerch, Marison Steinicke, "History of Religions between Asia and Europe"; Brill 2012

Reference 4 citing Ben Tamari Book "Conversion and Symmetry Laws and Stabilization"; 1997 (Page 33)

  • 5. Miguel A. Barrón and Mihir Sen; Synchronization of four coupled van der Pol oscillators Nonlinear Dynamics, Vol 56, no 4 (2009), pp357-367

So you see, there is no "lack of reliable third party sources" nor it is demonstrate notability - i.e. it is noted and there are indeed 3rd party sources to the Tamari attractor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.154.126 (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are not reliable third party sources. In every one that I have been able to look up, the Tamari material was a simple mention, no discussion. This is covered in WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE and is not to be taken as a grounds for notability. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur. I have checked all of those sources and none of them has as much as a sentence specifically about the Tamari attractor. The first three just mention it in lists of attractors and the last two are citations to Tamari's work, without any mention of his eponymous attractor. Nobody is doubting the notability of attractors in general, including strange attractors, the topics actually discussed by those sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Those who are calling for keeping this article have obviously tried hard to find coverage in independent reliable sources, but have failed to do so, per the analyses above by myself and others of the sources offered for consideration. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2012 (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/Tamari_attractor&oldid=1071976788"