Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Finding Eigenvectors: Fast and Nontraditional Method

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Consensus is that this page is an attempt to advance WP:OR against policy. If it's need for some other purpose - say moving it to Wikibooks as has been suggested below - the content can be requested at WP:REFUND. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Finding Eigenvectors: Fast and Nontraditional Method

Original research and article in wrong namespace. Anita5192 (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discovery made after three centuries and will help students and researchers around the world with this new method of finding eigenvectors. Why are you trying to delete this? Please let someone knowledgeable about the subject matter have a second look. Thank you. Uditanalin (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ - I have forgotten all of the mathematics that is involved (because I have forgotten all of the higher math that I learned in college), but I know that a review of whether the mathematics is original research can be done in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The century old methods uses what we call the Gaussian elimination or simply row-reduction to find eigenvectors. This can be extremely difficulty when the matrix is bigger. I discovered a technique that is very simple and fast. The paper has been submitted to Journal of American mathematical Society for possible publication. I hope they will. This is only the calculation part of it since this is not the right place to discuss all the math behind. I showed completely worked out examples to assist the reader of Wiki to understand it. What you see in this page is not a presentation of the research work. This page has been linked to the main "Eigenvalue and Eigenvector" page to assist the calculation process. Thank you. Uditanalin (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe What is the meaning of Userfy [[[User:Uditanalin|Uditanalin]] (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia:Userfication. It means WP:Move the page to User:Uditanalin/Finding Eigenvectors: Fast and Nontraditional Method.

Also, you should create User:Uditanalin to, at least, briefly introduce yourself and your interests on Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe Thanks for the explanation. Will the page be visible to public after Userfy? If not I'm against to that. Since no one can get the benefit of this efficient algorithm of finding eigenvectors.Uditanalin (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that Wikipedia is not for original publishing? Read WP:No original research. Also WP:NOTHOWTO. In userspace, in your userspace, only Wikipedians will see it, it is a place for you to develop things. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe It has already been developed. If you want, go ahead add delete the page. I will create this as a google page. You need to revise those policies for special cases. Otherwise there is no future, but the same old things. Uditanalin —Preceding undated comment added 07:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the author is not interested in userfication or the Wikipedia content policy WP:NOR. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, You !voted twice. Not sure if you want to strike the earlier !vote. Although we notionally don't vote, I suspect this was just an oversight. Doug Mehus T·C 01:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete per SmokeyJoe and per WP:IAR above, so WP:REFUND can apply if and when the creator agrees to userification. Doug Mehus T·C 01:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia:No original research is policy. Userfying or draftifying is just encouraging the continuation of the effort to publish original research on Wikipedia. A waste of everybody's time. -- Whpq (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The research in mathematics is different from other sciences. In physics or chemistry, when someone say something it has to be tested for verification, while the case is different for mathematics in which we prove something is right or wrong. You need to understand this simple logic without wasting my time. That's why I said you need to revise those policies. I asked what is the meaning of those terms. None tried to explain it to me. If it is not visible to public, there is no point wasting my time here. I have already developed the theories by submitting a 40-page long manuscript to a top math journal. What I wanted to do is to expose them to the readers of wiki since they can use them without waiting those results to be published. I have other important things to do. So finally, if one more person say delete, I'll go ahead and delete the page whether you like it or not. I do not worry about the policies... I'll change them. I have already moved ...mfd... to the bottom of the page. I'll continue to do that until you take a decision. That is my stance at this time. Uditanalin (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not going to win that argument. You are merely proving that you are out of phase with WP:NOR. Wikipedia covers what others have already covered. I advise you to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, sign up, and go to the talk page and ask for advice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe -- I have a new productive suggestion. Can we create something call WikiProjects, which is publicly available (may be after 48 hours of production allowing a moderator to check for appropriateness). This is for original research only, whether already published or not. Researchers can create a page with their findings and have a discussion section at the bottom of the page for scholars to comments/criticize/suggest only using .edu e-mail signups or some other authenticated means. That way we may get relatively good reviews of the finding and may even lead to new discoveries. We can also have a special header saying "These are original research findings only. The accuracy/validity is not guaranteed and the WikiProjects does not endorse the contents and arguments presented here. The original author is solely responsible for his/her claims made in this page and any updates even made by others." ... something like this. This will help many researchers even the established ones. Later, you may move to WikiPedia after the research gains some endorsement from other scholars, may be through journal publications and the like. What do you think about this idea? I'm more than happy to move my project to this category, which give public access to new finding right from the oven. .... Please make comments. I do not know the process. Thank you. Uditanalin (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We may enforce a requirement that the page will be visible to public, say, only after endorsement by two other scholars or something like that to keep the standards. Just a thought! Uditanalin (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research! Have you not read this? -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq-- It looks like you do not understand my point. I'm talking about a whole new idea WikiProjects, which has never been in the past and different from the current WikiProject concept. Sorry I had to say that. Please let SmokeyJoe to comment on this. He has better ideas and out of the box thinking. Uditanalin (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you are proposing is a place to publish original research on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please don't stuck with the old idea and the old policy. We sometimes need to revise them for betterment. I'm proposing something new to WikiPedia and probably can go a long way, maybe producing new ideas, concepts and possibly breakthrough discoveries. I'm not bragging about what I did, but use to give as an example. What I discovered recently is after almost three centuries. Now we have a new way to find eigenvectors probably reducing the time 90%. I do not worry about No, original research on Wikipedia at all. We are talking about the next level of Wiki. Please think about it. Uditanalin (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to propose a policy change. If you want to change the policy on no original research, them you will need to propose the change at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). -- Whpq (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and propose it. I'll definitely support it. Please remember, this is not for whole wiki ---- This is only for the new WikiProjects concept.. Anyway, I'm not a big fan of policies, I'm only thinking of the betterment. Uditanalin (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe -- For example, my project will start at https://en.wikipedia.org/WikiProjects/Finding_Eigenvectors:_Fast_and_Nontraditional_Method ... something like this. Uditanalin (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe -- We can see that https://en.wikipedia.org/WikiProjects is not currently being used. So, we may use that for our purpose. Please express your productive thoughts in this matter. I would like to get this done. Thank you. Uditanalin (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia space is not a stomping ground for your original research. If you are so convinced of the veracity of your own work, get it published in a peer-review journal. We are not a peer-reviewed journal.--WaltCip (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The author has made the case that they are not interested in keeping this page in draft space while the usual academic peer review process is completed, but is insistent on using either Wikipedia or another WMF project to advance their original research. Since that is not the purpose of Wikipedia, this should be deleted. This is one of the unfortunate cases where an author makes the case for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone. I will not provide any more replies/explanations or answer any further questions. I made my point/argument very clear, the decision is yours. I do not have more time to waste and have a lot on my plate already. Thank you for everything you do to the community. Best Regards Uditanalin (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTWEBHOST. Like Robert McClenon, I remember reading about this in college. Dudley Eigenvector is a character in the Thomas Pynchon novel V. (I'm borderline innumerate - like most Eng Lit majors - and lawyers - so I don't have the slightest clue what all that maths-y stuff is about.) Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, userfy, or delete per many opinions above. — Jeff G. ツ 14:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's blatant WP:OR + self-promotion. I don't think userify/draftify is the right answer here, because leaving it around just encourages this behavior, and WP:NOTWEBHOST applies. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from here, but allow access to the source if required to move across to Wikibooks or wherever. Guy (help!) 16:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per others. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scholarly journal. I encourage Uditanalin to promote this method, but in other avenues. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 05:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a textbook or guide. Eigenvectors article already exists and has basic information on how to find them. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A wholly inappropriate use of Wikipedia as a medium to promote original research. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:31, 9 February 2020 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.