Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coding Theory from an Artistic Viewpoint


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Coding Theory from an Artistic Viewpoint
Original research. JoanneB 10:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

hello from singapore.

The article is intended to be general and rather loose. Can you tell me what you feel is not good about it? I can edit it according to your preference.

Someone might object that i am printing original research in the paragraph: "A possible solution: neural networks". I'm almost certain this has been done before. Nueral networks are like wild animals in the sense that they dont obey rules very well. The method may have worked many times in the past but might not work in the future. Also they are difficult to tame. I really feel that in some cases this can be done and in other cases it cannot. How do you feel about this?

Another problem might be the repetition of the concept of a "geodesic". Yet the article on that subject is full of equations. I think my article says it from a different, more simple point of view.

The gentle political satires were removed.
 * (preceding unsigned comment by ) . Please see WP:NOR. --GraemeL (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research. --GraemeL (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete it's quite interesting but is really a personal essay rather than an encyclopedia article in my view - so unfortunately not really wikipedia material.  Perhaps the author could create an user account and place it on their User page?    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   13:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unfortunately, though the author has clearly put thought into this material, said thought has clearly involved thinking up new ideas, rather than organizing and reporting upon pre-existing ones.  Personal essays, no matter how interesting the topics they cover, do not belong on the WP.  (Sections trying to justify why the article "definitely belongs on Wikipedia", I must add, are counterproductive.)  I suggest that the author create a user account and move this material there.  Also, I suggest reading through what modern semiotics people have said about communication as "encoding" and "decoding".  While much of this structuralist, post-structuralist or whatever material is interesting, I find that large chunks of it are simply indigestable &mdash; the sort of bad writing Alan Sokal lampooned in the Sokal Affair.  Anyone working on WP articles in this area and making them comprehensible would be performing a great service.  Anville 14:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic material, but (perhaps good) original research. Not sure where this could belong, perhaps on wikibooks? -- Egil 15:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Possible contains some interesting thoughts, but not appropriate as an encyclopedia. –Mulligatawny 16:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete OR --Rogerd 18:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to fall into the common trap of failing to distinguish between Coding Theory and Cryptography (the former is for accuracy, the latter for secrecy). But I couldn't make much sense of it, and I'm writing a Ph.D. thesis on Coding Theory. --RFBailey 21:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Confused, rambling OR that cannpt be salvaged or sourced. MCB 18:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikibooks and delete. Jkelly 01:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * O.K., delete Thank you all for your excellent thoughts on the subject. I'm delighted that so many people read it.  Will try to transmit it to somewhere else.  RFBailey has chosen a good thesis and will make much money if he stays with it.  It's true that cryptography and coding theory are different and that people confuse them.  Will try to be more analytical and so on in the future.  Kirk out.   13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.