Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deko Dekov


 * 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. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 07:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Deko Dekov

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

This is part of a walled garden created by describing his own research, using primary sources only, with grandiose claims of priority that would not survive scrutiny and hence violate WP:NPOV. Aside from the severe WP:COI problems, the research does not appear to be notable, and I believe Dekov fails WP:PROF. I am also nominating: Note that a superficial look at Google scholar gives the wrong impression: the Euclidean Geometry reference has 22 citations, but they are entirely self-citations. The Deko Dekov page was already deleted once, in 2006, but I don't see an AfD so likely WP:CSD doesn't apply. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (added after Laurent1979's comment)
 * (added after Laurent1979's comment)
 * (added after Laurent1979's comment)
 * (added after Laurent1979's comment)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions.  —87.252.35.195 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —87.252.35.195 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There's a clear WP:COI. Also I've searched for his name on Google but couldn't find anything substantial. He published a few articles but none of them seem to have received independent reviews, and none of them appears in major publications. Same thing for the three related articles. Laurent (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable self-promotion; I suggest adding Journal of Computer-Generated Euclidean Geometry to the nominees. - Biruitorul Talk 15:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * At the same time you were suggesting this, I was adding this — done now. Thanks for the suggestion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Added to WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For information: The 2006 deletion was a speedy deletion because the author and sole editor,, blanked the article. The deleted article gave Dekov's full name, including the middle name whose initial is "V".  (Xyr initial is also given in the papers that xe has written.) David Eppstein, I think that you are, if anything, underplaying the problems with what's available via Google Scholar.  All of the results bar exactly four when looking for "Deko Dekov" are articles from the so-called Journal of Computer-Generated Euclidean Geometry.  Despite the presence of an editorial board and a call for referees, this isn't an actual mathematical journal.  I've just gone through it.  Its articles are machine-generated, and all by Dekov xyrself.  The one human-written piece was a letter to the editor (which is Dekov) from Dimiter Skordev, pointing out errors of attribution and fact in the machine-generated articles.  The remaining four articles are papers by Dekov, which don't document any of the above subjects.  Looking for the "Machine for Questions and Answers" and other such things yields similar problems.  There's no better to be had from Google Books or Google Web, furthermore.  The only place that this computer program, machine-generated "journal", and machine-generated "encyclopaedia" are documented is on Dekov's own WWW site.  Let alone anyone else, it appears that not even Dekov xyrself has published any papers about them in any actual, human-written, peer reviewed, journals of mathematics.  There are serious verifiability problems here.  The only sources with any information at all are not human-written, and they only document these subjects insofar as they contain boilerplate text to the effect of what the name of computer program that created them is.  There's no in-depth documentation to be had on these subjects, and what entirely superficial and scant documentation that there is isn't published in a reliable publication, doesn't appear to be peer reviewed, isn't human-written, and doesn't even appear to have escaped its author and become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge.  Finally: All of the documentation of Dekov xyrself that appears to exist is autobiography, on xyr own WWW site.  The PNC is not satisfied, there. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice. Besides, he already has his own computer-generated encyclopedia; that seems like the perfect place for him his computer to reference his own computer-generated cruft. –  7 4   01:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think that the fact that there's no independent sources that talk about him says it all.  Matt (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note:  Note from Dr.Dekov: Thanks to all participants.  The Machine for Question and Answers is the first computer program, able easily to produce new knowledge. The Encyclopedia of Computer-Generated Euclidean Geometry is the first encyclopedia, all results in which are produced by computers. The Journal of Computer-Generated Euclidean Geometry is the first journal devoted to mathematics created by computers.  I have included the above statements in the articles, because I believe that the Wikipedia users have to know the facts.  The first version of the Machine (2006) is relatively primitive. The aim of this first version is just to test the validity of some of algorithms. The first version of the Machine is produced by using relatively primitive software tools. But the first version of the Machine easily produces thousands math theorems, including thousands new theorems. The first versions of the Machine easily produced the first (still test) version of the Encyclopedia (2006).  I am working on the second version of the Machine which uses new software tools, including new programming language. The new version will be able easily to produce approximately 10 millions new theorems in Euclidean Geometry, that is, to extend essentially the current Euclidean Geometry. I plan to form a team of researchers from a few countries in order we together to produce the second edition of the Encyclopedia. The researchers will use the Machine to obtain new results, and will be authors of articles of the Encyclopedia (and co-authors of the Encyclopedia). Also, the researchers will have the possibility to publish their results in journals.  I would like to invite Dr. Eppstein and others who are interested, to join the team.  Computer-Generated Knowledge is important for the future of science and I believe that the Wikipedia users have to be informed about any success in this area.  Sincerely,  Dr. Dekov  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDekov (talk • contribs) 08:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They'll be informed when you go through the proper academic processes and publish papers about your work in proper, human-written, peer reviewed, academic journals. Wikipedia is not a mechanism for performing end-runs around such processes.  It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source.  It is not a journal, it is not a free WWW host, and it is not a publisher of first instance.  You do not publish information about your work by going to your university library and writing directly into the books and encyclopaedias there.  You do not publish information about your work by coming to this encyclopaedia and doing the equivalent.  You publish it using the normal, well-known, and long-standing mechanisms, of formal academic peer review and publication in formal academic outlets.  This is what encyclopaedists require of researchers.  This is what the world requires of researchers.  Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The user has tried to edit-war with me over the "autobiography" tag on his autobiography. That alone says his intentions aren't the most sincere.  All of these are blatant self-promotion which isn't what Wikipedia is for.  Themfromspace (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all apparent SPA; apparent COI; apparent OR; no independent sources; no evidence of notability; the on-line "encyclopedia" is little more than a shopping list of theorems. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an archetypical illustration of the dangers of writing articles about yourself and/or your own work. I must say that I am surprised that Dr. Dekov does not understand the academic process better: he has 20 publications on mathscinet, 9 of which are in journals with a perfectly solid international readership and reputation.  It would certainly be possible to write a reasonable article about his academic work.  (Whether it would pass our WP:PROF standard is another matter, but the current version is not appropriate for any encyclopedia.) Plclark (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all lack of reliable, secondary, sources independent of the subject; fails WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This recommendation applies to all of the articles that make up the WP:WALL. Computer-generated mathematics is an intriguing idea, with the potential of attracting media coverage and helping one or more of the articles pass notability requirements in the future (including Dekov’s article, under WP:BIO. Unfortunately such coverage is practically nonexistent at the moment, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete All fail WP:V, WP:N. Ray  Talk 17:24, 17 March 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.