Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination)

Boubaker polynomials

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials
• Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination)

Boubaker polynomials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The above-captioned article was created and, most importantly, deleted numerous times on a number of wikis (e.g. :fr it, sv, de, pt) some time last year (non-notable). It also was the subject of massive sockpuppetry and spamming, particularly on :fr (see :fr:Vandalisme_de_longue_durée/Mmbmmmbm for a detailed list and background story).
The article was lately re-pushed by Luoguozhang, who pretended to be editing from China. Well, a CU showed that it is not really the case, and the user was banned (again) both here and on fr. Then there was the off-wiki legal threat yesterday against the French admin who dealt with the AfD request. If this article gets deleted, I think it would help everyone that re-creation be blocked for the foreseeable future (this has been going on for a year now).

Notability: Scholar has 17 occurences, 7 of which are actual peer-reviewed articles (the rest look like poster abstracts). All of them are the work of either one of two authors, K Boubaker or KB ben Mahmoud (both from Tunis U.). I looked into Scopus and found that these papers were cited only once or twice, presumably as a form of circular reference. There has also been a submission to Planet maths with one of the references being... Wikipedia. The matter was reported to project maths but after initial acknowlegement that there were some papers out there the discussion forked into the massive sockpuppettry issue. Thus, I'm putting this back onto the AfD track.
This is not about the reality of these polynomials (which exist by the truckload) but rather the aggressive self-promotion of otherwise non-noted, non particularly notable work. Oops forgot to sign, thx A.R.Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Manually fixed nomination about 15 minutes ago. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Proposal: Trim, and merge to Chebyshev polynomials. Concur that they appear not to be used by anyone other than Boubaker. (They differ from the other similar polynomials, such as Lucas polynomials, by being linear combinations of the same Chebyshev polynomials, with only a scale factor of 2 to content with. Lucas polynomials would have to have an imaginary argument if they were to correspond.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete is acceptable, but merge and protect redirect seems a reasonable alternative. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete : it has been a long vandalism on wikipedia fr. Frankly, the notability is very very weak. All references point to this single author/website which is very active in communicating. I don't think that anyone has really written on these polynoms except this guy and a few of his friends. So delete in my opinion. Poppy (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete : no notability whatsoever. A show of vanity. Gede (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't usually take part in his kind of thing here -tho I did with the 2nd nomination (where an old vandal copiously attacked/defamed me under various accounts...)-, but this case is particular. It involves advertising/vandalizing/heavy-sockpuppeting/etc. on several Wikipedias. It's been going on for almost 2 years and even escalated to RL threats recently (tho there could be other occurences I'm not aware of). The article itself has no notability and will most probably be deleted, but due to the many aggravatings activities of the author, I'd like ask the page (and other probable titles) to be protected against recreation too. DarkoNeko x 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Not to Delete If it is matter of notability, the presence of 13 hits in OEIS and Planet maths are relevant. One just ahs not to Say about notabilityTwice2222 (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Waow ! First edition on Wikipedia and it happens to touch Boubaker polynomials. Welcome, Mr Twice2222. French Tourist (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The scholarly articles seem more than sufficient to demonstrate notability for me. Also, I'm against a merge into Chebyshev polynomials...that page is already too long. That said, I think this current page is pretty bad...lots of equations and not much prose. That needs to change. Cazort (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This is more difficult a choice than can be thought at first glance. It is useful to read again the comments made when the article was recreated and discussed at Project Mathematics. There was nobody to stand up strongly for it, but there were a few participants to underline (rightly) that these polynomials have been used in articles published in peer-reviewed journals. e.g. :"One of the necessary conditions for a paper to be accepted in a peer-reviewed journal is for one's peers to be sufficiently interested in the subject matter so as to believe it merits wide dissemination. (...) I don't see why this article should be in danger of being deleted.". The question might hence be : should Wikipedia blindly include everything that has been mentioned in peer-reviewed journals ? I think not, but this is a rather difficult question. I don't modify my position since previous nomination : accepting such blatant self-promotion puts Wikipedia at risk. French Tourist (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I am strongly against Arthur Rubin's proposal to merge with Chebyshev polynomials. While it is not completely obvious to determine whether Boubaker polynomials should be or not included in WP, if the answer happens to be "yes include them", they have not to be included in an important article, which would be a violation of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT : it's important not to give a casual reader of Chebyshev polynomials a hint that Boubaker polynomials are in some way at the same scale of importance than say Lucas polynomials. Hierarchising information is the main task in building encyclopedic content. French Tourist (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the (correct) impression that Boubaker polynomials are a trivial modification of Chebyshev polynomials gives undue weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I wrote the passage quoted by French Tourist above. I do not myself have any connection to or even any interest in Boubaker polynomials. (I have edited the article, but all of my edits involved reformatting the references, in particular making sure that all authors' names appeared in each reference.) I know relatively little about the sock-puppetry issues, but if anything that seems to be a point in my favor since I think that those issues are quite distinct from this AfD. To answer French Tourist's question: yes, I think that any topic in the mathematical sciences that is cited by at least 10 different papers in peer-reviewed journals has sufficient notability for wikipedia. (More precisely I am less uncomfortable with this statement than with its negation.) I don't see what is gained by deleting this article. Moreover, I completely agree that including this material in the article on Chebyshev polynomials would be giving the topic undue weight. Plclark (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The notability standards are not intended to judge whether the scholarly work is worthwhile, just whether it is mentioned sufficiently often and specifically enough in reliable sources. For mathematics articles, 10 articles in peer reviewed journals is considered sufficient. Even if they are just a trivial modification of Chebyshev polynomials, the fact that so many referees and editors have agreed to publish the material is what we should be considering, not our own viewpoint on the worthiness of the mathematics or on the conduct of its authors. We do not and should not care whether this is good scholarly work; we should only concern ourselves with whether reliable sources have judged it to be worthy of publishing. As an example of a trivial modification that actually has some scholarly dignity, see fundamental pair of periods which is very little more than graphing SL(2,Z) from a strict point of view. We do not have the duty or the responsibility to judge the merit of the original research; we only have the duty of organizing the judgements of the journal editors and textbook authors. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Ten articles in peer-reviewed journals would normally be sufficient notability, but they're all by Boubaker himself, and Google scholar only finds 7, according to the nominator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment User Arthur Rubin repeated twice "but they're all by Boubaker himself", it is not the matter of this 'Boubaker' but of the polynomials ! let's hope User Arthur Rubin was only not-informed. For his clearence, can he answer to the question: what about the following ????

Neil J. A. Sloane, Triangle read by rows of coefficients of Boubaker polynomial B_n(x) in order of decreasing exponentsA138034

Roger L. Bagula and Gary Adamson, Triangle of coefficients of Recursive Polynomials for Boubaker polynomials, OEIS (Encyclopedia of Integer SequencesA137276

Roger L. Bagula, Triangle of coefficients of Boubaker recursive polynomials with even powers transformed as x->Sqrt[y]A137289 Neil J. A. Sloane and R. J. Mathar, Irregular triangle read by rows of coefficients of Boubaker polynomial B_n(x) in order of decreasing exponents A135936

S. Slama. A Boubaker Polynomials Solution to Heat Equation for Monitoring A3 Point Evolution During Resistance Spot Welding,. International Journal of Heat and Technology [ISSN: 0392-8764, by EDIZIONI ETS] Volume 26(2) (2008) pages:141-146.

Roger L. Bagula, Differentiation of:A135929 Triangle read by rows: row n gives coefficients of Differential Boubaker polynomial P(x,n) in order of decreasing exponents, A136255

A. Bannour, Triangle read by rows: row n gives coefficients of the modified Boubaker polynomial mB_n(X) in order of decreasing exponents, OEIS (Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences), A138476A138476

Roger L. Bagula, Integral form of A135929 :Triangle read by rows: row n gives coefficients of Integral form of Boubaker polynomial B_n(x) in order of decreasing exponentsA136256

J. Ganouchi. A attempt to solve the heat transfer equation in a model of pyrolysis spray using 4q-order m-Boubaker polynomials. International Journal of Heat and Technology [ISSN: 0392-8764, by EDIZIONI ETS] Volume: 26 (2008) pages: 49-53.

Ting Gang-Zhao, B. Ben Mahmoud, M. A. Toumi, O. P. Faromika, M. Dada, O. B. Awojoyogbe, J. Magnuson and F. Lin (2009). Some new Properties of the Applied-physics Related Boubaker Polynomials. Differential Equations and Control Processes 1. Ting ganZ (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • Comment This is the key point to agree on in my opinion. If peer-reviewed respectable journals are ok with Boubaker's embarassing self-promotion, then why are we not ok with recording it? The wikipedia article is very clear about the shameless self-promotion involved and stands as a public place where everyone can come to laugh and marvel at such a man and such a collection of academics that refereed and published it. Note that Boubaker did not publish these papers (nor even author *all* of them, just most), so that the judgement of their notability is not made by him, but by the journals. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment. I was reporting the nominator's view that all the references were by Boubaker. However, thinking it over, we should not use a count of peer-reviewed papers as evidence of notability, but only of accuracy. As a sometime-reviewer myself, I wouldn't consider the question of whether a concept is notable in considering whether to accept a paper about it. The number of different authors who are not coauthors with Boubaker might be an indication of notability, which this concept fails miserably. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • Comment Rubin's comment is squarely against wikipedia policy, and an AfD does not seem to be the appropriate place for a policy discussion. Moreover it is also decidedly against my experience: I believe the job of a referee is to weigh in on the notability and importance of the work presented in the paper. Most instructions to referees contain explicit directives to this effect, and many point out that this is even more important than verifying the correctness of the results presented. In my opinion it would be a major and unwise change of course to attempt to overrule determinations of notability by peer (i.e., subject area expert) reviewers. Plclark (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Comment User Arthur Rubin confirms he 'was reporting the nominator's view' Ok, but his own opinion was Delete is acceptable ?! The nominator him self does not deny notability but evokes other problems ...Now the question stands fot this user: the polynomials are, according to WP rules and to the number of contributors -from America ,china, Romania,Rwanda , Uzbezkistan, Nigeria ... - NOTABLE or NOT ?? his answer to this question will really be a key for the debate ...

• Comment The issue of the behavior of the sockpuppets is quite serious, but they have been blocked. Their continued disruptive editing on the article is grounds for a community ban from this topic. However, protecting the article from conflict of interests and disruptive editing is very different from deleting it. Also, the inclusion criteria on frwiki and enwiki are different, and frwiki need not follow our decision at all (from my brief observations, frwiki consensus is clear to delete). JackSchmidt (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep according to WP rules What is strange in this discussion is that the AFD establisher Popo le chien is himself admitting the NOTABLITY, So what is the issue??

In fact, if there are problems linked to sockpuppetry, racism, xenophobia, extra-wiki problems, they might be solved away from this frame.

Any one can ‘say ‘ these polynomials are not notable , but WIKIPEDIA has an expressive, written and clear rule for that!! (see the passage from http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_Notability of special functions)

Examples Polynomials, Mathematical identities etc. The questions to ask (for NOTABILITY) are:

---

1. Have they been the main subject of (at least two) published papers, or chapters in a book, or an entire book about this sequence?

2. Are they cited in MathWorld or PlanetMath ?

3. Are they cited in in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS)?

4. Do they have a demonstrated (and/or) published expression?

An affirmative answer to one these questions indicates that the polynomials or mathematical identities are notable for Wikipedia to have an article about it.

---

So, any contributer should first answer to the simple question: Do these polynomials respond to these (above 1. 2. 3. &4) written rule of notability ??

As long as the AFD is about notability, any extra debate should be held out of this scientific field. i e. for merging, the article is enough long ans self-standing, and merging it with Chebyshev (because there is a link) will lead to merging Dickson , Lucas an tens of other polynomials. Since the debate is about notability, this issue in not adequate ( i.e. if notability is not established, how to merge ??) Ting ganZ (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment those notability criteria were added to the notability page by an anonymous contributor, and do not reflect any discussion. In fact, I recall a discussion at WT:MATH where OEIS specifically was discredited as a source of notability, although one could make a good case for absence from OEIS being a good source for absence of notability. MathWorld isn't even considered evidence of accuracy. PlanetMath is a Wiki; for the most part, it's named in guidelines becasue it has a compatable GDFL with Wikipedia, so we may copy material from it. Generally, a peer-reviewed book on the subject might be considered evidence of notability, but chapters of peer-reviewed books, and even a large number of (unreferenced) papers on the subject, should rationally not be so considered. But neither the list of claimed notability criteria nor this comment should be on this page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. These "Boubaker polynomials" B(2x) are nothing more than the trivial linear combination 4U_n(x) − 6T_n(x) of Chebyshev polynomials. Having an article on these is like having an article titled "Finknottle function" about 4sin(x) − 6cos(x). Mathscinet gives exactly one hit: a paper by Boubaker.r.e.b. (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per R.e.b. Normally I would think a mathematical subject with published papers by three separate parties (Boubaker himself, Slama, and Ganouchi; I don't count the OEIS entries) would be enough for a keep. But in this case we appear to be party to an attempt by Boubaker to promote himself inappropriately as the discoverer of something that he didn't discover. WP:NPOV says that this is too minor a contribution to be included in an article on as important and broadly studied a topic as Chebyshev polynomial, but it also says that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be party to this kind of self-promotion: we should report neutrally on what contribution is made to mathematics by these polynomials. Or in other words, we should say that they are only a trivial combination of Chebyshev polynomials and leave it at that. But a one-sentence article saying that these polynomials are 4U-6T, renamed in a self-promoting way by Boubaker, wouldn't make a satisfactory encyclopedia article, so I think it's best in this case just to delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)