Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar Tree

Polar Tree

(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Article is based on original research (unpublished material).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. 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]

Can you provide independent, third party reliable sources? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here http://code.google.com/p/lzham/ The person who published reference and tested algorithm is not my friend. I did not study with him in university and did not drink in a pub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 04:02, 25 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.