Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacket matrix

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The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacket matrix

I can find maybe 2 papers on Google scholar discussing jacket matrices that don't have M.H. Lee (the original article creator) as an author or co-author. Therefore, I'm not convinced this is a notable topic, even in a fairly limited academic circle.

Was PRODded, but removed by anon IP. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, WP:COI. The article is not based on WP:IS. Algébrico (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per mistaken nomination. Article obviously passes core policies WP:V and WP:SOURCES. It also easily passes guidelines WP:N as "Jacket matrix" return 100 hits on Google Scholar. Peer reviewed sources are Wikipedia's gold standard, I refer nominee to WP:N for details. The delete endorser's COI accusations and reference to WP:IS (which merely is an essay!) are misconceived; the reference to WP:OR is ludicrous. Yes, M.H.Lee (who in all likelihood is the article's creator) has published (and co-published!) buckets of articles on this specialist topic, it has NOTHING to do with WP:COI, please re-read COI, and perhaps consult the essay WP:SCOIC. Article currently only has one reference, simply because nominee recently deleted all the others [1], an action not justified or reasoned from criteria of relevance to the article, but from purely technical reasons, as the sources "were not specifically cited in the article. I believe the nomination is in good faith, but nominee shows a limited grasp of Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please close as speedy keep. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some responses from nom:
  - I'm not contesting WP:V and WP:RS.
  - Yes, I'm aware there are 100 hits on Google Scholar. But have you noticed that about 98% of them are all by M.H. Lee, the inventor/creator of the concept of jacket matrices? Notability requires widespread, independent coverage; I strongly believe this is not present, hence the nom. In essence, does anyone else in the world know or care about jacket matrices?
  - Please don't put words in my mouth; I haven't mentioned (or implied) a COI interest, nor have I mentioned WP:OR!
  - I culled the reference list because it seemed purely to be "promotional" (in a limited sense of the word); they conferred no direct support to the article. A list of 20 papers is not automatically a list of references.
  - Disagreeing with the notability etc. doesn't imply I "don't understand the nomination process", nor does it warrant a speedy keep on procedural grounds!
- Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 08:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely right, I shouldn't have mixed your and the endorser's comments, I've revised text accordingly. Adding relevant peer reviewed references is not WP:ADVERT. I would still say, that your reason for deletion based on notability concerns is very, very weak. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I would really like to see (to convince me that this is a worthwhile article) is some indication that someone else (preferably plural!) is actually using this maths, i.e. a truly independent, in-depth discussion of jacket matrices, as opposed to an endless list of articles all by the same guy. On the subject of references again: at the moment, the article essentially consists of a single factual statement (the definition). At most, this requires citing a single judiciously-chosen paper (not ~20, that helps no one!). On top of that, the reference list should include some independent coverage to demonstrate notability. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 12:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand that, but it is a home-made inclusion criteria. See Wikipedia:NOTTRUTH. I am definitely no subject matter expert, and for me notability is certainly implied, if Lee can get loads and loads of articles pubished in peer reviewed journals on the subject. I have also noted that he is co-author on many, so somebody must find this useful for some purpose. I cannot enter a subject matter discussion, due to lack of knowledge, but I don't have to, all that is needed is Wikipedia:Verifiability.
        Anyone can get anything published in a peer-reviewed journal, so long as the content is valid and the paper is coherent; that doesn't imply anything about notability. What matters is whether those papers have been widely used, i.e. cited. Just as an analogy, see the requirements for academic notability at WP:PROF (I realise it's not quite the same, but it's close). It states that an academic's work must be "highly cited", implying that being published is not enough. Incidentally, I'm not a subject expert either! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 13:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does not pass notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I believe that it's, in some way, COI, because Leejacket (talk · contribs · count)'s only contributions are about his little science "brick" and basically he's the only source. See also: User:Leejacket. I don't want to use WP:ADHOM, but the user could write about other math topics (and I see that he's very well qualified) instead of writing about his little science "brick" (contribution). Anyway, back to notability, if the topic does not have 'reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, I don't see why we should keep the article. IHMO, it isn't notable per lack of independent sources (WP:IS), and the possible COI (not that the article has COI, but because the creator of "Jacket Matrix" is the probably the creator of the article and his only contributions here are basically this article). If there were other important authors (plural, because independent sources are more than one) which are independent of the author (which means that they have never written an article together with Mr. Lee about the subject), I would not be opposed to keep. Algébrico (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or~~ merge to Hadamard matrix per WP:N since it is not notable enough for "a stand-alone article" (because there are not enough independent reliable souces) and because "The jacket matrix is a generalization of the Hadamard matrix." Algébrico (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hadamard matrix, the subject exists and is supported by reliable sources like "Jacket transform - eigenvalue decomposition" by Lee and Zhang on Applied Mathematics and Computation, 198-2, vol 1, pg 858-864. The problem about keeping is that almost all sources are primary (papers published by Lee, who inroduced the concept in 1989). Jacket transform could be a redirect as well. Lechatjaune (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree with sentiment "the subject exists and is supported by reliable source", but I don't see that the notability is there to even be worth merging. What's the answer to "so what if the Jacket matrix is a generalization of the Hadamard matrix?"; if that can't be answered, I'm not sure how the Hadamard matrix article would be improved by mentioning jacket matrices. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are right, but we often include examples and related topics on articles about mathematics without any strong notability concern and these jacket matrix are more notable than any example of application we can create by ourselves. I think this kind of "bibliography research" discussion enrichs articles and are useful to readers, but I understand wiki.en should keep or delete content according to its rules. Lechatjaune (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources. Lechatjaune, very important, if Lee can have his stuff published in university peer reviewed journals, the it is not a primary source, because Lee is not publishing the stuff himself. The publisher, and not the least, the anon. peer review process, are highly independent and bode for the relevant level of scrutiny and broader interest in the subject. This AfD is seriously mixing apples and oranges. Please read WP:SOURCES: I quote: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses". I go travelling soon and probably wont be able to come back to this discussion. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respect, I believe it is you who is mixing apples and oranges! I think everyone is in agreement that peer-reviewed journals are reliable, verifiable sources. But this is not the same as notability; they don't automatically indicate that anyone else has analysed or discussed (in a publicised way) the material in any significant detail, merely that the quality of the paper was good enough to be included in the journal. From WP:GNG: ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject" (which clearly includes the subject themself).
  - Incidentally, I'm inclined to agree with your assessment of the material as not being a primary source. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incidentally (2), if this material were found to be discussed in a "book published in university presses" (in a non-trivial manner), I think I would instantly withdraw my nomination. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Primary source is not the opposite of reliable source. The articles published by Lee where the introduces for the first time his new theory about a family of matrices are essentially primary souces (the original sources the material came up). If someone else publishes a review article, it will be a secondary source. Wikipedia is not intended to have an article about any published scientific theory. Lechatjaune (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incidentally, Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.", that is to say, the source is reliable, but it is still a primary source. Lechatjaune (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, speedy close as per User:Power corrupts. The subject is independently covered in an independent reference text published by a major scholarly press [2]. When you follow that Google Books link to Amazon, you see "jacket matrix" as the first "Key Phrase" in the Amazon listing; following that up turns up several more books which use the phrase in a scholarly/technical context. [3]. It may be a fairly arcane term at first glance, but it's got enough coverage to be notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're absolutely right! Whilst some of those books are about central heating (and therefore likely red herrings), I accept that it's been documented in at least a couple of books. What surprises me is there is seemingly such little independent coverage in academic journals. Nevertheless, I guess all I need to do now is how to withdraw this AfD... Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 20:05, 11 April 2009 (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.