Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar Tree

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Tree[edit]

Polar Tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is based on original research (unpublished material). Unable to find any reliable sources to sufficiently establish notability for this subject. Keep. The author of the article has produced at least one significant citation.Sebastian Garth (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Sebastian Garth (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Sebastian Garth (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tagged this for further information and for notability, but that hasn't happened. No evidence of notability. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I'd say it's WP:OR but can't be sure. A mathematician needs to look at it. Certainly their is no mention in Google books, and you would expect at least a few hits. scope_creep (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article provides improvement of two previously known since 60 years ago methods of constructing prefix codes. Original research started 60 years ago. The method is recognized and used by independent software developer, not affiliated with author. NO NOTABILITY, NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I suggest to ask an opinion of mathematicians involved in data compression. User Proudfoot published article about garden in China. That does not say anything about his qualification in the article subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, where does "polar tree" appear in that reference? And who published it? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Projects hosted at Google Code, SourceForge, and the like are not publications; they are repositories for code (and not necessarily endorsed by the sites that maintain them, anyway), and as such they don't qualify as reliable sources. Moreover, you seem to be confused about the concept of original research. It really isn't that hard to grasp: the synthesis of ideas not based on verifiable sources. From here:
"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable. [...] Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
Can you provide any such citations? Sebastian Garth (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proudfoot, You try to move discussion away from the matter. We have to discuss merits of the article among professionals. Instead you try to question the citation. Citation shows that algorithm was found by someone, tested and left in software, not thrown away, because it provided improvement of exact the same nature that is claimed in the article. As I already said, you and Sebastian are pretending to follow Wikipedia policy to a letter when speaking about my article while looking to the side when I mention article about ROLZ algorithm. Because if you or Sebastian nominate ROLZ to deletion somebody will tell you both SHUT UP and you do as ordered. And ROLZ article is a classical case of violation of most Wikipedia policy. I will not nominate ROLZ to deletion or report it because I judge articles for its scientific values and from my point of view this article should be written but from yours it should be deleted. Go ahead and show your blind justice on ROLZ.
  • You don't understand how Wikipedia works. We are not here to discuss viability or whether or not some piece of code exists. Nobody doubts that. Wikipedia is a refernce of third resort. That means under Wikipedia's verifiability policy, reliable sources must be provided. This may be the greatest snippet of code that ever existed, but unless you can source it, it does no good, and it can't stay here, by policy. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Than go ahead and do same thing to ROLZ and let me see how you will be ignored. ROLZ allegedly was introduced in WinRK. But it is proprietary software, disassembling is against the law. In the same way that in Polar Tree the algorithm was taken and implemented in BALZ compressor. One implementation and no explanation. Do you see similarities? What makes ROLZ worse that Polar Tree it is not even explained in the article. So, what we have: no reliable source, original research and no explanation. Look when the topic was introduced and look how long it is staying and neither you nor Sebastian suggest to remove it. Do not suggest me to nominate ROLZ for deletion because for me it is great and important algorithm but for you it is not because it is not cited in reliable sources not properly explained and is original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.80.58 (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, so you are obviously unconcerned about Wikipedia policies. Bottom line: if you can't agree with the terms of use then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia in the first place. Simple as that. Sebastian Garth (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment C-processor (talk), unfortunately Wikipedia takes a conservative approach to new ideas. You'll either have to publish your work in a peer-reviewed medium or get an article written about it in a well-known publication first, before it will be accepted here. I suggest you devote your energy to these goals. Good luck! I hope your article will be here soon. — HowardBGolden (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You and others keep repeating same things over and over ignoring obvious facts that I point out. Wikipedia publish new ideas, and ROLZ is one of them. You and others, participating in this discussion, do not make any decision. There is a MAN IN THE SHADOW that decides what stays and what goes away. He nominated article to deletion and not willing to identify himself.
  • Actually, it was I who nominated the article, and no, I don't decide "what stays and what goes". Anyone can nominate an article for deletion, revert edits, and add content to the encyclopedia. It is by consensus that we reach our decisions, together. Furthermore, the reason why I haven't looked into the ROLZ article, quite frankly, is because I don't feel like playing your little game of "tit for tat". Sebastian Garth (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have Ph.D. in Automatic Control and published many articles in peer-reviewed journals. I know how it all arranged. Articles are rejected independently on their merits unless its publication is arranged by a confidential phone call to editor-in-chief from a person he knows very well. The reason of rejection is avoiding responsibility by a reviewer, who can not possibly keep track on everything what is happening and afraid to pass plagiarized materials. Only articles sent from individuals with established reputation are published. My original article is published on my web site where I do not need to bow editor. Since it is already published it can't be republished somewhere else, journals do not accept copies. Wikipedia is different. It informs public, so it explains materials published somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 03:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it is no doubt challenging to publish material for the first time, it is by no means impossible. You could, for example, contact an expert in the field (who has published papers WRT information theory or the like) and ask if they would be willing to co-write an article with you or some such (a professor at the university that you attended might be a good candidate for such a request). Moreover, if you haven't already submitted your article to a reputable publication, do so. Someone there may be interested enough to take a chance on a good idea (it may help if you point out to them that you have published in another field). Sebastian Garth (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • New independent reference Matt Mahoney web catalog. The site is long. To find reference you need to find expression Polar codes in it. The site holder Matt Mahoney is world expert in data compression. His program PAQ8 holds the world record in compression [1]. And we did not meet. I showed more independent usage than ROLZ.
  • Sebastian, stop discussing unimportant details. Speak on the context. I presented independent acknowledgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ------------------------------------------------------------------

I presented independent references that can be considered as peer-reviewed, because my referees provided unsolicited testing and links in a record time since first publication. In Large Text Compression Benchmark Matt Mahoney also explained the matter of the algorithm to his readers with his own words. Taking into consideration that Polar Tree or Polar Codes is only modification of Huffman and Shannon-Fano codes and not represent completely new research but rather modification I insist on keeping this article in Wikipedia. The name introduced by independent referees and assigned in accordance with other two codes named after inventors Shannon-Fano and Huffman. I suggest the individual that nominated article to deletion come out of the shadow and confront me in open scientific discussion. It is perfectly clear that those who participated in discussion so far did not nominate this article to deletion and their opinions will not be considered in final determination. Should this article happened to be deleted the brief history of the process along with independent references will be published on my web space [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 07:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, the Mahoney article would serve as an adequate reference, I think. Accordingly, I've changed my opinion to "keep". Sebastian Garth (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Sebastian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.80.58 (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have relisted as the nominator withdrew their nomination, but there were 'delete' recommendations. As a result, I am unwilling to close this as 'keep' at this time. However, if all those who commented here are in agreement that this should be kept, it can be closed before the 7 day relisting period is up, unless further 'delete's are added.-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to thank somebody who contributed to the article by editing my clumsy English. Now the article sounds much better its original version. Let me also summarize my reasons for keeping article:

1. It is not radically new data compression technique but slight modification of other known methods and has same purpose and its own advantage and disadvantage. 2. In data compression area there is no such thing as best algorithm, because it depends on data. If you ask any expert to advice which data compression method to use, the answer will be 'What is your data?'. Wikipedia role is to inform people and let them choose. 3. Waiting when method is used by many researchers and referred by many people is unacceptable in computer science, because it needs at least 10 years and what would Wikipedia look like if it publishes achievements in computer science from 10 years ago. People would not address to it. The computer science novelties have to be published quicker. 4. The suggested technique was noticed immediately after publication, incorporated into a big project (that does not happen very often) and cataloged by expert in industry, so we have two independent reviews. I apologize if I was not very polite during debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 04:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my delete. Still not notable. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can remide first message of Everard Proudfoot that says: Can you provide independent, third party reliable sources?

The source that I provided later is catalog of all known data compression algorithms and programs mainained by guru in data compression Matt Mahoney - the computer analyst who holds the record in data compression, which is above benchmarks of many corporations that sell software. Matt Mahoney has Ph.D. in computer science. His catalog has status of on-line journal and not different from other peer reviewed journals. Mr. Mahoney has a reputation, he capable to understan merits of data compression algorithm and will definitely not put into catalog something that is wrong or ineffective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.80.58 (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Matt Mahoney is considered an expert in this field, then I think notability is established. (This isn't a field I know much about, nor have I read much about this subject, so I can't give any opinion on Matt Mahoney's eminence or lack thereof.) — HowardBGolden (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are zero reliable sources to indicate this is notable. Note that the reference to Matt Mahoney appears to be this which specifically states "This is an open benchmark. Anyone may contribute results. Please read the rules first." -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is confirmation of novelty of the algorithm provided independently by industry expert in the form of notification to readers. So it is same as publication in peer reviewed journal. Anyone can contribute and many programs that are there effective but do not have novelties in algorithm. They are simply listed as benchmark. Polar codes are mentioned in different context. The benchmark shown, the matter of algorithm explained. The link to different from author implementation is provided. Wikipedia purpose is to notify public. Notability is not a goal. Notability is a means for preventing unverified materials to be published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I consider comment of Whpq as a personal attack by using specific exaggeration in the language and in tone. What means "There are zero reliable sources". The confidence of the tone directed to brainwash reader. This statement is totally and knowingly false. I remind that there are 2 independent sources. One is description of the improvement achieved by incorporating of the algorithm into large data compression software. What might be unreliable here. Does he believes that improvement is not achieved or algorithm is not incorporated. The code is published the researcher that did that has professional reputation. The article indicated that decompression is 12% faster. Does user Whpq understand that if it is video we can pass 12% more data for the same time and improve quality of HDTV. What happen if somebody beats olympic record on 12%. Is that not important either. Second link is Matt Mahoney site. Matt benchmarks everything but if there is no novelty in algorithm he does not indicate novelty but place a single record: name of program, ratio, compression time, decompression time, memory usage. In my case Matt Mahoney explained readers the novelty of the algorithm. That is not just benchmark, that is information about novelty, NOVELTY, N-O-V-E-L-T-Y. Does user Whpq presume Matt not telling the truth or what? Benchmarking means that testing every program. Mahoney personally ran the program several times, measured used resources, looked at the code and so on. This is the matter of benchmarking. Can user Whpq indicate any particular false or wrong statement on Mahoney site? I wish this user luck with his article about Mount Abbot in British Columbia that he started. Admin please instruct users to stick with academic language and to stop false and absurd exaggerations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 06:09, 4 September 2010 (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/Polar_Tree&oldid=1138242640"