Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Optimal Classification

Optimal Classification
Original Research. This user is from the English Wikipedia and a recent AfD of this exact topic was deleted, the user's sock puppets blocked, and the main user account has been blocked for a week due to personal attacks and other disruptive behavior. Jamesontai (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete — This is the same material that was deemed as original research in recent AfD as mentioned. Transwiki-ing the same material does not make it right.  Jamesontai (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete — per Jameson and What is Wikibooks, which explicitly prohibits primary research. --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep -Typetive 18:25, July 31, 2008
 * Optimal Classification was originally published in the Wikipedia in May of 2007. It contained an unwikified primary reference that was wikified as an inline reference, along with several notes. It had two minor typo's, which were corrected and wiki graphic tables which made it larger than necessary. The graphics were converted to images and the size reduced. Currently references and notes are being expanded and text added to clarify the theoretical and empirical separatory equations. It is a work in progress.
 * It was moved from the Wikipedia to the Wikibooks because Wikipedia user Jiuguang Wang read a Wikia article by the original author of the Wikipedia article which he rejected due to his being raised in Beijing as a Chinese Communist and as an atheist prior to moving to Atlanta in 2000 when he was 12. The Wikia article uses logic to both define, support and defend the existence of God.
 * In line with his rejection of the Wikia article he rejected the Optimal Classification article as a hoax and nominated it for deletion on the Wikipedia. Proof that the article is not original research can be found by reading the primary reference while the notability of the subject can be verified by reading the references the primary reference contains.
 * I am contacting you because user Jiuguang Wang along with a Wikipedia administrator have now nominated the Optimal Classification book for deletion as a continuation of their harassment and personal attack against the Wikipedia author and since I have never been through a nomination for deletion experience I do not know how to post a vote to keep this book from being deleted. Your help is needed and will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Typative (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Two points worth noting: First, a person's behavior on Wikipedia does not matter here at Wikibooks. When he comes here, he has a blank slate and is not to be punished for his behavior elsewhere. This is most true of Wikipedia, which is known to have a very tough and incompassionate system of justice. Second, transwiking from Wikipedia to Wikibooks might be the right thing to do since the two projects have very different inclusion criteria. The idea of classification, and the idea of an optimal classification scheme are not unique nor original. This topic is an important one in the field of computer science (and less important but still pertinant for other fields). Wikibook's notion of "original research" is different from that at WP, and I do not believe this book to be in violation of our policies. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you elaborate on WikiBooks' policy on original research? At the previous AfD, concerned were raised over the "references" provided in the article in that they do not actually provide references for the materials in the article. You are right - optimal classification is an important idea, but the article here is about an algorithm the editor invented. The cited works (by Rypka) contains no mentions of an algorithm called optimal classification. As for the behavior - should I assume that calling another editor "...Chinese Communist Beijing as an atheist" do not constitute a personal attack here? --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If the editor has made a personal attack, we will deal with that elsewhere. It is not the purpose of VFD to examine behavior issues, and we will not make deletion decisions based on them.
 * Wikibook's OR policy is far less restrictive then that at WP. We don't require references (although they are always appreciated), because books tend not to have them in the same way that Encyclopediae do. Books will have biblography, however, and we encourage that. We require that books be verifiable, either through normal references/bibliography, common knowledge, or self reproduction. If a result can be reproduced faithfully by a reader, it satisfies our criteria. Because of the verifiability requirement, books tend to build from easy results which are obvious to results which are not. However, since books are works in progress, we can't expect new books to contain all the necessary scaffolding to support later results. Ideally, that scaffolding will be added eventually. Is this enough information for you? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. I would still like to know in what way this article is verifiable, though - the original editor would argue that it is verifiable by Rypka's work, except I cannot find anything online or in books that matches the statements and equations in the article (please provide a page number?) The work has also not been peer-reviewed elsewhere. --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, and we can take those kinds of criticisms into account later. All books have problems, new books especially so. We can't damn a book for being imperfect before it's even a week old (and not even then, usually). What this book needs is time to improve. If you've read relevant works in the area, are familiar with the subject, and are obviously taking the time to post comments here, maybe you would be interested in helping this book to grow correctly? Small books need all the help they can get. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What was "invented" by Dr. Rypka and his team, which included scientists from the former Soviet Union, were the theoretical and empirical separatory equations. The "algorithm" is merely the application of the equations to static or incoming dynamic data. The word "optimal" as explained in the text is used throughout Dr. Rypka's work to denote the type of classification along with the word "continuous." Contrary to the statements of User:Jiuguang Wang, on page 161 of the Primary reference can be found a photocopy of the Burroughs 5700 Time Sharing Service Terminal printout and a full description of the algorithms which implement the separatory equations. Elucidating the equations by describing each of their variables is hardly original research. Rather it is the equivalent of paraphrasing the text of Dr. Rypka's work. You will have to obtain and read a copy of his publication to understand the reason for use of the word "optimal" in the name of the book's title since I do not have permission (yet) from the publisher to publish a photocopy of Dr. Rypka's work here or in the Wikipedia. What disturbs me most however is that Jiuguang Wang would nominate an article for deletion without reading the primary reference or the references it contains. It would be the equivalent of an anthropologist going into the jungle, seeing a skeleton he had never seen before and for that reason taking a mallet to it. Typative (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * , but revisit. He's only had just over 3 days to work on it, and textbook materials take a lot more time to develop than wikipedia articles (we also don't have the same sorts of notability requirements). If it is original research in the sense of an interpretation or extrapolation, it can be transwikied to Wikiversity for further development. I recommend closing the VfD for at least a few weeks to see what can be made of the text without undue pressure. -- SB_Johnny | PA! 23:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * , as per SBJ. It doesn't sit well with me that two people create accounts here apparently for the sole purpose of nominating a new book for a VfD and voting on it. I view such activity with a jaundiced eye.  I have a difficult time believing they intend to become a regular, constructive part of this community once this issue is resolved.  --Jomegat (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep The background history to this over at Wikipedia is somewhat disturbing and doesn't really make anyone look particularly good. It seems like people are taking this very personally. I agree with Whiteknight, SB_Johnny and Jomegat. Let's close this for now and give it some time to develop. Perhaps this should eventually move to Wikiversity. --Swift (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep per jwt.--AdRiley (talk) 08:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep-This can, of course, be greatly improved but lets give them some more time. Red4tribe (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)