Wikipedia talk:Notability (science)/Archive 1

message: We need absoutely need this for science, which, with the sheer volume of extant literature, is very much at risk for the directory phenomenon.  Here's an example.  In 2000, three goofballs in Ottawa (I'm allowed to call them goofballs) published  on the computer modeling of red blood cells in an optical trapping system.  Is it verifiable?  Of course!  There's the peer reviewed journal link right there, and it's been cited 19 times by other papers.  It's a great study, and paved the way to a cell sorter that they made.  Is is notable?  If I made an article called Computer modelling of red blood cells in optical trapping systems should it stay, or should it go?  I'd be in favour of a notability guideline to help decide that.  Otherwise we'd be debating between WP:V and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate..." to determine whether or not to keep that article.
It's even worse in medicine, where Wikipedia can easily turn into another PubMed.  PubMed is a phenomenal directory.  Everything in PubMed is verifiable.  How does Wikipedia differ?  I think it's in terms of notability primarily.  The fact is that there's a lot of (1) verifiable minutia (that's important only in a small sphere) and (2) non-notable junk that's published in peer review journals and found in PubMed.  I think a notability guideline is essential to help sort out what to keep.  Otherwise, we'll become a repository for the "Chelation therapy and the elevated copper theory of ulcerative colitis" () and what not (WP:BEANS, I know). -- Samir धर्म 09:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We absolutely need this for science 

message: NPA personality theory and it's author Anthony M. Benis up for AfD? Pete.Hurd 03:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like an obvious case of bandwagoneering to me. I also asked User:Psychonaut if he has an opinion on this essay. ~ trialsanderrors 06:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: thoughts on...

message: Here's an interesting one: Pete, Kevin and I think this article's got nothing to do with game theory, Trovatore says it's got nothing to do with combinatorial game theory. The term itself has quite a bit of a footprint in the usual search engines, but I haven't seen anything yet that might amount to a feasible definition or a trajectory of common use. It might be interesting to see how it fares at an AfD, where "90 hits on Google scholar" is often an argument in favor of keeping. ~ trialsanderrors 20:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely a real concept, used in relation to the Axiom of determinacy in set theory.  There is a small group of articles that are sort of strange birds, they aren't really part of the cannon called game theory, although they're not really combinatorial game theory exactly either.  I have talked with a few set theorists around here and can verify the legitimacy of the article, but I don't really no where to put them.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that it started out as something akin to what's described better in Determinacy#Strategies and then morphed into something that reads like half-remembered ideas from a combinatorics class. The question is is there anything worth salvaging or should we redirect it to Determinacy? And if we salvage it, what are the sources to rewrite it from? Certainly if we want to put it into a game theory context things like "winning", "rule" and "lookup" table need to be explained. ~ trialsanderrors 21:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Test case: [[Winning strategy]]

message: Up for deletion. Enjoy. ~ trialsanderrors 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And a bit more serious; Emergent philosophy (not up for AfD yet). ~ trialsanderrors 22:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Up on RFC, Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system (eu-FEDS) hypothesis. Pete.Hurd 00:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Six cites? That could be interesting to follow. Didn't read through it yet, but I noticed this. ~ trialsanderrors 02:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I noticed that too, threshold seemed much lower... More to say later... Pete.Hurd 03:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW,  Pete.Hurd 06:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the article is perfectly AfD-able, especially with the author's comments which pretty much amount to WP:OWN. WP:RFC doesn't seem to create too much traffic. ~ trialsanderrors 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum ecosophy|Quantum ecosophy]]