Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deduction Theory

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. As per everybody except the brothers Lee themselves. Sandstein 13:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deduction Theory[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. Mister Lee may use the term 'in the (unintelligible) sense laid out here; does anybody else?? TheLongTone (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this subject, Lee published his work in a public academic repository named Philipapers.org on January 9, 2017. This work satisfies the conditions of the primary sources. Kenneth Kijun Lee, Chase Kihwan Lee, <A Theory Explains Deep Learning>, PhilPapers And there is an article that introduces this subject in the third academic magazine. This magazine is a computer science magazine published in the United States. This medium is an academic magazine that can be proved objectively and circulated and recognized in both academia and industry. Computer Vision News - March 2017 Therefore, the conditions of the second sources are met. In March, 2017, Lee and his article introduced and linked on the Spotlight News column in an academic magazine called Computer Vision News. The magazine did not only mention superficial facts about him and his works, but gave positive complement and concrete links to the reader. The magazine said, “Study Deep Learning from Scratch - A Theory Explains DL Nice and well-written beginner’s guide to study Deep Learning. Cured job by Kenneth Lee and younger brother Chase Lee using Korean adages and Plato’s theory of forms.” Computer Vision News is an academic magazine devoted to topics related to computer vision, machine learning, deep learning, artificial intelligence, and other algorithmic computing. It can be confirmed objectively through the publication history and contents of the medium. The contents of the magazine are not written by Lee himself. It is written by the editor from the magazine. The editor is Ralph Anzarouth and if you need a third party confirmation, please contact <[email protected]> I will link to a picture of email copy from the editor. The item thus appears to have met and validated the document criteria because it meets the requirements of the primary sources and satisfies the conditions of the secondary sources through a reliable specialist magazine. Chaseklee (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, are you Chase Kihwan Lee? Because if not, your username seems designed to give the impression that you are him, and that runs afoul of our username policy. Conversely, if you are him, there are clearly Conflict of interest issues. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am Kenneth Kijun Lee who is mentioned in this article. The ID “Chaseklee” is Chase Kihwan Lee himself, that was right. However, writing a subjective claim on Wikipedia would violate the neutrality principle and confilct of interest issue, but it is still legitimate to quote objective sources. In Wikipedia, people can be admitted to mention their own thoughts if they can quote from the primary sources and proved by the secondary sources which is independent and objective opinion. This document is not about Chase Kihwan Lee or Kenneth Kijun Lee themsleves as their personal life or biography with subjective describing, but about the deduction theory that I(Kenneth Kijun Lee) claimed as an objective opinion. I presented a research document that was published in a public academic paper repository as a primary sources, and I completed a third person proof as a secondary source by being introduced in a specialist magazine. And it is the Computer Vision News magazine that proves the third person as the secondary sources in this document, not me(Kenneth Kijun Lee) or Chase Kihwan Lee. Please do not confuse objective facts. If you want to question the COI issue, you will have to ask or confirm what kind of relationship the author of the magazine has with us(Both Kenneth Lee and Chase Lee). But as far as I know, the magazine is a recognized engineering magazine run by an independent editorial staff. So it seems that COI issues doesn’t apply in this case. KennethLeeDeductionTheory (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps too soon to declare notability. If it really is a new field of mathematics (or is it philosophy, marketing, or what?) then it would need to wait until it is is mentioned by more than one other person. Such fields develop over many years, and individual theories come and go with each graduate student at least. Maybe a native speaker of the Korean language might be able to offer a better judgement, but there may be few of them. W Nowicki (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, let's recall the common rules of Wikipedia. The rules of Wikipedia are to present primary sources in an public research document and to complete an entry condition if a third person which is independent and reliable source proves the secondary sources. This is not my personal claim, but the rules of Wikipedia for everyone, and there is no such saying “more than one other person”. I have never argued that the deduction theory by Kenneth Lee(me) outperforms other theories, but I only recorded facts that happened objectively by quoting from the sources. If my deduction theory is error in actual reality, or if it is contradicted by another research, that fact will be recorded here as well. This is a process of fair record and debate. Rejecting it without reasonable grounds can be discrimination. And the primary and secondary sources I presented are all in English, and the secondary source as the magazine is an computer engineering magazine published in the United States. There are some website external links by Korean language in the document, but they are only auxiliary references. So it can not be argued because of the sources by Korean language. KennethLeeDeductionTheory (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above, does not meet WP:GNG. Also agree that with WP:COI and the references provided, seems promotional in intent. Perhaps if it becomes more widespread. Ies (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will refute your claim by the contents of the GNG that you linked. General notability can not obtained by just a reason that it is known to many people. Because many people can have false information, prejudice, bias and stereotypes. The way to obtain general notability is well documented in the GNG content. It is only completed by a reliable, independent and objective secondary sources. This is exactly what you linked from the GNG. In this post, I completed the third-party proof as Computer Vision News, a reliable, independent, and objective secondary sources. But you do not seem to confirm that it is true or not. If you want to make General notability a problem, you should not be concerned about "being known to many people" and should determine whether Computer Vision News is reliable, independent, or objective. It is not convincing to address the issue of General notability without proving it. The same is true for COI issues. You do not know if I have intentions for gainning my interest by writing this document or not. It's an individual subjective thought. Your claim that I have intentions for personal interest is also subjective opinion of the individual. How to prove this is also shown in the COI document. It's a very simple solution that checking reliable, independent, and objective secondary sources of proof. I finished third person proof with the secondary sources. You can verify anytime whether this is correct or not. But by superficially linking rules, you can not prove your subjective claim.

Strong delete--Pure and typical promotion.Does not meet WP:GNG. Also agree with issues of WP:COI.Whatever the heck(mathematics/economics/phil.) it is,I support W Nowicki that individual theories come and vanish.It's just too too soon to have an article on the topic.Winged Blades^Godric 12:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to make a claim, you have to provide reasonable evidence. What grounds do you claim that I violated the Wikipedia rules? And how can you prove it? It is unreasonable to suggest only and agreeing with someone who has the same opinion with you. To convince your argument, don’t you think you should prove that what I wrote so far is not true or that the sources I quoted is not true? I think that many unfounded opinions are violence using power of multiple subjective opinion and that are not objectively justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennethLeeDeductionTheory (talk • contribs) 13:30, 14 March 2017 (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.