Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency fractal


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Frequency fractal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article appears to be written in support of AjoChhand Machine which is also up for deletion as a suspected hoax. The term frequency fractal is referenced to Mandelbrot, one couldn't ask for a more impecable fractal related source. Unfortunately, I am pretty sure that Mandelbrot's book does not even mention this term (although it several years since I read it); it certainly does not appear in the contents of the book (accessible through Amazon on the Kindle version). The only source that actually uses this term is the Ghosh et al. paper, which is the claimed hoax. The rest of the extensive sources do not directly support this concept and the article is thus largely WP:OR. If it does not fail WP:HOAX it certainly fails WP:N. SpinningSpark 01:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Spinning Spark, User:Spinningspark please wait for a while, check it. Fractal is referred to Mandelbrot, not frequency fractal. it is a typo error, we wanted to refer Fractal not Frequency fractal, now corrected. Please make a google search, there is a plenty of Frequency Fractal, we thought to edit all articles in a few days, but amazing. I added a few references now, and to address your concern we have added some references, please wait for a while for the changes to take place.--MasaComp (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Spinning Spark, User:Spinningspark All corrected. I just found that your above argument is fundamentally wrong, I checked to find that there is a section where several references of frequency fractals in biology and in music. Therefore, your point that it is not notable is irrelevant and since it is notable it is not a hoax. The very reason of creating this discussion gets invalidated. Ghosh et al has added a single work "same looking" or "dissimilar looking". Thats just part of a very well known subject of research frequency fractal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasaComp (talk • contribs) 02:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for basically the same reasons as I suggested a delete in the AjoChhand Machine AfD: this is sourced to a single work that is new, largely uncited, essentially self-published, and mathematically incoherent. It is self-promoting buzzword bingo. It is not mathematics, and it is not encyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I'll assume for the sake of argument that the concept behind the article is sound. The paper has far too few citations (by two orders of magnitude) and zero coverage in reliable sources, thus does not meet our notability guidelines.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per David Eppstein. -- 101.117.108.115 (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can find no credible reference. Maproom (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - In addition to the arguments presented by David Eppstein, Lesser Cartographies, and Maproom, the lede of the article is not in good English, and the entire article raises competency issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research --Whpq (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - OR - an attempt to build an article out of various unconnected topics. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - the phrase "frequency fractal" does not appear in Zentralblatt MATH, which strongly suggests that there is no independent reliable source discussing this concept. Deltahedron (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Benoit Mandelbrot did talk about how he observed fractal self-similarity in the pattern of periodic events at different time scales when he was diagnosing an electrical problem, this could be seen as a fractal frequency. However this article is just not demonstrated to me that it is a: sourced, b: not original research and c: not utter nonsense. Chillum 18:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - One is supposed to find a notable topic first and then write an article about it. As far as I can see this is an article written with a made up title and they then try to find stuff to stick in it by googling the made up title. Dmcq (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2014 (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.