Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-based numeration

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 speedy delete. Author accepts that it is OR. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One-based numeration

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

A fork of Decimal without a zero, i.e. Bijective numeration#The bijective base-10 system, which doesn't add or expand on that in any meaningful way, and mostly consists of unencyclopaedic examples and calculations. Numerous formatting issues. Unreferenced and no indication it's independently notable, and the definition is basically the same as that in Bijective numeration, for the case k = 10 JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John,

1. What do you mean by "meaningful way"? Please point it out.

2. Which specific topics are required here? Please point it out one by one.

3. As for citations, since this is my own work, I don't see any available citations on Google. Maybe I need to write a blog as the citation ...

Thanks, ^kitiiy 02:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. The definition is NOT "basically the same as that in Bijective numeration" and the radix is also NOT limited to 10, please reread the original article carefully.

Thanks, ^kitiiy 03:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5. It's neither "A fork of Decimal without a zero" nor "Bijective numeration or even Bijective numeration#The bijective base-10 system", have you really read the article? ... I will remove the template due to there's no reason for deletion.

Thanks, ^kitiiy 04:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, removing the AFD tag from an article not only does not end the AFD process, but it risks you getting blocked. Deletion discussions must run their course until they are properly closed, and they may not be unilaterally closed by the article's author just because he disagrees. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Deletion process. Doing so is considered unacceptable conduct and disruptive. I've accordingly reverted your removal of the AFD tag from the article, as well as your inappropriate, and incorrect, notice claiming the article is protected from editing, and you can consider this your one warning.

You also wrote: "As for citations, since this is my own work, I don't see any available citations on Google. Maybe I need to write a blog as the citation ..." Before you do anything else here, please read Wikipedia:Original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability. We do not accept content that has not already been published elsewhere by a reliable source, as Wikipedia is not a platform for original thought. postdlf (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR --John Nagle (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whatever its mathematical merits, this is admittedly pure WP:OR created by the author, with admittedly no sources, reliable or otherwise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely an important topic, but the author should cite sources first, not formulate his/her own thoughts and, even worse, introduce a self-made notation. Also, I think that adding a section to the article "positional notation" was a mistake – it is only tangentially related. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author seems to have spammed this stuff to several articles. -- 202.124.73.136 (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the fact that the article author admits to WP:OR. No sources found for the version of bijective numeration presented here, using "0" for the radix (and even if such sources existed, it's only a trivial variation). -- 202.124.73.136 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Something like this is not OR. Or at least, making one be the smallest digit and having a digit of value equal to the radix is not unknown in the scientific literature, whether or not the person who posted here knew about it. Foster wrote about this for decimal in 1947 and I have used the same idea in binary (cited to Foster) in my own research. That said, it's a somewhat obscure idea that may not justify an independent article, so I'm not !voting keep for now unless more sources turn up. Also the current article is really unclearly written so even if this does turn out to be notable enough (of which I'm not yet convinced) we may be better off deleting anyway and starting from scratch. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the fundamental idea adequately covered in Bijective numeration? -- 202.124.75.93 (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet

1. Bijective numeration is unrelated to this One-based numeration, i.e. The decimal number 16 is 16 in Bijective numeration's decimal, but is 26 in One-based numeration's decimal. So again, 202.124.73.136, please reread the original article carefully, your assertion is ill-founded.

You're saying leading 1's are treated as leading zeros. That seems a trivial (and unsourced/WP:OR) variation. -- 202.124.75.93 (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that AAA in Bijective numeration's decimal is 1110 in the standard decimal, but 000 (or AAA) in One-based numeration's decimal is 1000 in the standard decimal?

1. It means that Bijective numeration's decimal version is actually NOT decimal, but One-based numeration's decimal version is pure decimal.

2. The difference of 1110-1000 is 110, do you still consider it as "trivial"?

Thanks, ^kitiiy 11:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. As for citations, I've seen a lot of articles created several years ago on the Wikipedia don't contain enough citations, but still haven't been deleted. Instead, just a Template:Original research or Template:Reliable sources was added, so please explain.

See WP:WAX and WP:N. -- 202.124.75.93 (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. A lot articles such as Numeral_system only contain little "indirect" references or external links, is it also acceptable?

4. "... introduce a self-made notation"--Incnis Mrsi

I added a "definition" to the article just because the user JohnBlackburne required me to add some non-example content and to refer to the style of Bijective numeration article.

Thanks, ^kitiiy 02:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the last point is unclear I previously prodded the article when it consisted of a paragraph and some examples, and it is that proposed deletion that must be being referred to.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5. I do NOT always have enough time on such meaningless issues, I've requested WP:CSD for that article. Thanks, ^kitiiy 03:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry about the delay in answering your questions, here it is:

2. See WP:WAX

3. Possibly, however WP:WAX still applies.

4. True, however WP:OR is looked down upon.

5. I'm not sure what this refers to?

Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 07:32, 29 September 2012 (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.