Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congruent Partitioning


 * 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @736  · 16:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Congruent Partitioning

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

It looks to me as if a decades-old tech report has been transferred to Wikipedia. Apart from the "document in the files at WPAFB" mentioned towards the end, there are no references regarding the method, in particular no secondary sources. Another point is that the author's name is "JRobertLogan", and the principal investigator was J. Robert Logan. This has been removed from the article, but may be found in the history. Favonian (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fundamental technology described in this article is relevant, and has been taught in the Electrical Engineering Department at Brigham Young University. The fact that this "tech report" is old does not invalidate the concepts in any way.  In fact, the elegance and performance claims made in the article are proven, and verifiable by simple inspection and testing.  This article was only submitted today, and already it's nominated for deletion?  It seems unlikely that the nominee took any time to evaluate the technology and compare it to the "old tech" Karnaugh Map and Quine–McCluskey algorithms which actually predate the Congruent Partitioning work.  It would seem reasonable to allow some time for the author and others to add references and make other improvements (including conforming to guidelines), then re-evaluate the value of this contribution.  LifeOfLearning (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do indeed find it difficult to read this article, and so will most other readers, which is why I've added a call for technical expertise to the talk page. The age of the report is not the main problem, but I think there is a WP:OR issues.  Another question which I need to ask is: are you the original author of this article?  This list of contributions seems to indicate it.  If so, I think you should mention it when commenting.  Favonian (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not the original author, who I know and who is quite old. I learned about this in a university EE class lecture years ago, so I am familiar with the concepts of this and the related technologies.  My contributions are simply those of an kindred spirit, wishing no more than to share a useful technology with others.  The constructive criticism here is appreciated, thank you.  LifeOfLearning (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Needs at the very least a complete rewrite. The lead does not even explain the topic to a general audience, and the rest of the article is no better. Hairhorn (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unintelligible text, close to patent nonsense:  Congruent Partitioning is a completely different genre in the automatic synthesis of logic equations.  The Quine-McCluskey algorithm produces its output by reducing a selected canonical set through iterative comparison and elimination of common bits. Where a function is made of a significant number of variables a computer is the only way of handling this task. The processing algorithm is simple but it can take significant time.  After reading that, I am no wiser about what this is or does.  The claim about being a "completely different genre" suggests that the author is blowing his own horn about the merits of his original research. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead has been re-written, but is still opaque to non-experts: "Congruent Partitioning is an algorithm for the automatic synthesis of logic equations..." Hairhorn (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Brilliant, much faster than Karnaugh Maps. Jjcondie (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not about the method per se, but whether the article is Wikipedia material. Favonian (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Jjcondie's argument is irrelevant to the issue at hand, as is LifeOfLearning's. Ihcoyc, the first part of your argument is, too.  Deletion policy doesn't allow us to delete articles in fields that editors aren't competent in.  Patent nonsense is text that one couldn't understand, not text that one simply doesn't understand. As a matter of fact, I do understand this content.  Perhaps that makes me an "expert".  I make no claims.  As someone who understands what this article is attempting to discuss, I've looked for sources that document this, and not found any.  The second part of Ihcoyc's argument thus applies.  This subject as presented simply is not documented, in published works, outside of Wikipedia.  It appears to be a novel invention, not heretofore documented in published works, being documented by its inventor directly in Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance, in violation of our No original research policy. M. Logan, this is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source.  It is not a publisher of first instance.  It's not a research journal, nor an advertising billboard, nor a free wiki hosting service.  Please get your research, ideas, and inventions published via the proper outlets, with the proper peer review processes applied.  Wikipedia is not a shortcut around those processes.  Get your knowledge out into the general corpus of human knowledge, the right way, before coming to Wikipedia.  Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion seems to hinge on two points: 1) whether or not references exist, and 2) whether the topic "as presented" is formally documented. The original article section entitled "Congruent Partitioning by Machine"by M. Logan corresponds directly to the referenced two volume document at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and the three other references.  The Air Force document is reliable, available in the public domain, verifiable, and corroborates this section in every detail, but unfortunately not exposed by online/periodical searches.  The claim that, "I've looked for sources that document this, and not found any", without any effort to obtain the referenced documents is a weak excuse.  And then to claim that this subject "as presented" is not documented is simply not true, repetitive, and shows lack of due diligence.  Please provide a reference to Wikipedia policy that requires references to be accessible online.  The present introduction section and the section entitled "Congruent Partitioning by Machine" meet all of the Wikipedia requirements for encyclopedic content, although they could be improved of course. Wikipedia has no requirement for references to peer review processes or publications, only to "cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article", which this article does.  This article cites published material that was originally produced under contract to the Air Force, including the original research that resulted in well defined algorithms that were also incorporated in a computer program.  Military research contracts are not granted without prior careful analysis and review by qualified individuals - also a peer review process. A strict interpretation of "as presented" would require only direct quotes, and no paraphrasing, of published material - which would appear to invalidate most Wikipedia content.  However, the claim that the original article could only be understood by an expert has merit, which is why I contributed the section on "Congruent Partitioning by Hand", based on classroom experience, to further introduce and simplify the concepts for non-experts.  This section "as presented" is not formally documented out of the classroom, and I accept responsibility for violating the requirement to provide reliable references per se. However, this section does not represent original research, and is merely a simplification of the main concept, verifiable by simple inspection, and similar to an extended introduction that is common in the first section of Wikipedia articles.  You are welcome to delete this section, as you please, to uphold the letter of the "as presented" law, so to speak. Jjcondie's argument is extremely relevant, as it lends credibility to the basic concept as being self evident, which also supports the requirement that Wikipedia content be verifiable. Keep.  LifeOfLearning (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: You still seem to regard Wikipedia as a scientific journal and the editors as referees, who have to be convinced that your technical paper deserves to be published. Uncle G has told you clearly that this is not so.  An encyclopedia article must be reference verifiable secondary sources.  This article does not provide these references, and this is the main reason why our recommendation is to delete the article.  Favonian (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2009 (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.