Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The long tail paradox


 * 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. --Core desat 04:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The long tail paradox

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

'''I thank Goochelaar for his insight in which he was able to track my bold comments which I inserted under my name and to come out with the brilliant conclusion that they are mine!!! And than to change my comments to non bold smaller letters - Thank you.''' '''Just to say that until now I havn't even seen one comment that finds a flaw in the paradox. Just to make it easier for Goochelaar to find this comment I will put in Bold again. Also I challenge Goochelaar which is an active and succesfull mathematician according to his profile to find a flaw in the paradox.'''User:Yitshak2003.
 * Please see below. --Goochelaar 12:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

''In what follows, I have put in a smaller type the edits by User:Yitshak2003. Although he has modified comments by other editors in a way that made it difficult to discern his own interventions, I deemed unfair to just revert his edits.'' --Goochelaar 10:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The long tail article in wikepedia is not better. It relies on internet based articles mainly by the same guy that wrote that article which uses the article in a smart way to promote his website "the long tail". After all the paradox is valid until someone will find a flaw in it. moreover it is a well O. K. Yitshak is posting his own research as a page. The creator of the page was User:Yitshak2003, and he also edited The Long Tail. Do a google search on "long tail paradox" and you get sites that talk about different "paradoxes", and his does not show. '''Do a google search on "the long tail paradox" and the article appears on the 6th place!! Moreover there are tens of paradoxes related to the long tail that you can find in google. I would expect people to add their thoughts on the article, edit it and make it a full article showing all the acpects of this subject, rather than trying to get rid of it. It seems that someone is afraid of the issue - maybe there are business plans and advisors that are worried of a real discussion on the issue.''' an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Long_Tail&diff=151990710&oldid=151878991 is the link showing his name. Jjamison 01:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into The Long Tail or Delete. It's difficult for me to tell from the external links whether the paradox is the brainchild of O. K. Yitshak - does using insulting comments add to an inteligent discussion? -or whether it's an actual notable observation by economists.  One thing is for sure: the Long Tail certainly doesn't need two articles.  --Hyperbole 01:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The beginning paragraph and the external links on The long tail paradox were lifted directly from The Long Tail. The nomination was for the information following about "search engines income" [sic], which does not seem to have any support I can find on Google, just the one link provided by User:Yitshak2003. Jjamison 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks good, sourced, but no good google hits. Funny, how google has become a reliable source to prove that something doesn't have reliable sources.  J- stan  Talk Contribs 02:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, the Long Tail has been written about, but O.K. Yitshak's thoughts on it have not. Fails WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- fails OR. Also dubious maths. --BozMo talk 07:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: OR, nonsensical pseudomaths. Goochelaar 09:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete little worth merging. Artw 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete2 per all of the above. Dbromage  [Talk]  00:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish your new ideas. Burntsauce 18:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, violates WP:OR. Bearian 03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Answer to Yitshak2003: As you my check by referring to this page's history, you forgot to sign you comments, and they were only partially in bold, exactly as they are now. And moreover, you are not supposed to insert them randomly within other people's remarks. As for your paradox being flawed or not: Wikipedia is not the place to have it checked. You can write a paper about it and submit it to any of a number of scientific journals which will be interested in reviewing it and, if it is valid, in publishing it. Or you could give a talk about it at some conference. However, Wikipedia is not the place in which to publish one's original result, it is a reference work to read about already-reviewed research, sorry. --Goochelaar 12:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that proffesional editing and add ons to the subject will add to the knowledge and the information spread around by wikipedia. Just to give you some list of links that maybe you should read about the subject  [layout=rich_story&doc_id=7721&title=Cutting+off+the+long+tail&categoryid=9&channelid=3]     —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yitshak2003 (talk • contribs) 13:27, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer to Goochelaar: As much as I understand Wikepedia is about free content or free information on all branches of knowledge or in a particular branch of knowledge (this is a quote from wikepedia). The subject which I called the Long Tail Paradox is as valid as any subject since there are houndreds of articles that deal with the subject and more over it is a growing discussion beyond internet marketeers. I don't see what conventions or paper journals have to do with it. On the contrary - the whole "internet long tail model" was developed on the internet and only than there were a few books about it.
 * Thanks for these links, but simple pages talking about the long tail (which is in itself an important and well-studied concept) and in which the word "paradox" appears don't do anything to support the article you wrote. Is anywhere, on the net or on paper, that particular paradox mentioned by sources which are reliable and independent (that is, not in a website by you or a friend of yours)? --Goochelaar 13:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anyone of those authors, and they all discuss in different ways the long tail paradox.Did you read any of them at all? Sorry to dissapoint you but Ill keep trying to have this page alive.--Yitshak2003 14:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: the comment at top about tens of Google hits and the comment immediately above. I would like to respectfully point out that the sixth item in the Google search is not Yitshak's page, but the Wikipedia page; Yitshak's page does not show.  I would further like to point out that the other results in the Google search are all discussing different paradoxes, some of which are not even true paradoxes, and each different from the others; ergo the current content of the article is not the long tail paradox, but rather one of the long tail paradoxes.  None of them seems to be all that notable, and I would argue that none of them deserve an article.  Lastly, I reiterate Goochelaar's request for other sources referring to this particular paradox, rather than other paradoxes of the same name. Jjamison 06:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The paradox written here is not an invention, it is an existing paradox as appears in links that are here (or you can search google for other ). All I put here is just a methematical presentation of the things that are written on the web or other places. Maybe my presentation is not clear enough, maybe someone has a better way of presenting it so as always in wikepedia everyone is welcome to edit and improve the presentation of the subject.--Yitshak2003 07:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find it. Would you be so kind as to mention one single website in which this particular paradox (not different paradoxes related to the long tail) is mentioned? --Goochelaar 10:18, 26 August 2007 (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.