Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computational intelligence since the 1950s: Complexity and logic


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Computational intelligence since the 1950s: complexity and logic

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I tried to CSD G12 this but none of the templates would work. This appears to be a copy of one part of the article Toward physics of the mind: Concepts, emotions, consciousness, and symbols . See abstract and index of the article. McWomble (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * there is a copyright permission from the author to publish this material, see OTRS note on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanilin (talk • contribs) 14:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep . Comment. Probably not a copyvio. Unfortunately OTRS checks can only be done by a handful of Wikipedians, so we have to assume that the ticket is valid. If you think it's not, ask at AN/I for verification. VG &#x260E; 14:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have checked the OTRS ticket and it is in fact valid. Tiptoety  talk 19:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The original source text asserts that copyright is held by Elsevier with all rights reserved. The article is a verbatim copy of a previously published paper. McWomble (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you've got the right link? That paper is way longer and "animal and human vision" (picked some words from the WP article) are not in the pdf... VG &#x260E; 15:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't believe this is a copyvio of a Perlovsky paper.  This article is quite poorly written, and everything I have seen by Perlovsky is much better.  I am voting "delete" because I believe this is largely OR.  At any rate, the writing is so incoherent that it is nearly impossible even for somebody with some expertise in the field to make sense of it. Looie496 (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Followup -- on further investigation, the beginning and end of the article appear to be original, but several paragraphs in the middle are taken nearly verbatim from the Perlovsky paper in question. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looie made me actually read the article. It should be indeed deleted as WP:OR, and frankly it's a bunch of vague statements bordering nonsense. The middle part makes a little sense in that it seems to assert that model checking runs into computational complexity (which is true). But the article is a sequence non-sequitur statements, e.g.: "Combinatorial complexity of algorithms based on logic is related to Gödel theory (Gödel's incompleteness theorems): it is a manifestation of the inconsistency of logic in finite systems". I'm not familiar with Perlovsky's writings, but I see he has a book published by Oxford Univ. Press. No way he writes like this. VG &#x260E; 17:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --KurtRaschke (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is copyright permission from Perlovsky to use his work, on which this article is based. There is room for improving this article, as per comments above.  However, this does not mean that the subject matter of CC in computational intelligence is not important enough to have an entry in wikipedia.  Possibly we could keep it and improve it?Romanilin (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Which work? No details were provided at AN/I so far, and the OTRS notice from the talk page links to the main page of his site, but that's a list of topics he worked on. If you think we can copy & paste all his papers or something like that, I have bad news for you: he transferred copyright to various publishers — a necessary evil in academia.
 * In any case, since you created this article, can you explain what this article is supposed to be about? VG &#x260E; 21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is about persistence of combinatorial complexity in various AI approaches: neural networks, rule based systems, model based systems, etc. leading up to the dynamic logic as the latest approach trying to address the problem.Romanilin (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This is really just a plug for dynamic logic (neural), which is a link to Leonid Perlovsky. It's effectively a POV fork.  We already have Computational complexity theory, which is a much better article on the same general topic. Also see Bayesian inference, which is how many intractable problems in AI are addressed today. --John Nagle (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * comment on copyright Elsevier will give the author of an article they publish permission to use the article in a later publication of his. That they would interpret this as letting him make the article GFDL is about as unlikely as anything is ever likely to get in scientific publishing. DGG (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.