Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transparallel processing


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Transparallel processing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am also nominating the following related page:

These two article were written by a single author, with only trivial edits by others. Transparallel processing relies strictly on primary sources, all cited to a single person (van der Helm). Transparallel mind cites a variety of incidental sources, but as far as I can determine the "transparallel mind" concept is only supported by the van der Helm sources. I did extensive Google searching and I could not find any independent Reliable Sources for them. They both appear to fail our WP:notability policy, and do not appear to have any recognized usage or acceptance independent of van der Helm. Alsee (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: The software tagged the author for possible conflict-of-interest on his latest edit. The article author's only other edits consist of inserting improper external links to van der Helm's private webpages into various articles, WP:CITESPAMing van der Helm refs into various articles, and inserting Transparallel text&links to various articles. I'll do any appropriate cleanup after this AFD is resolved. Alsee (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Two questions: (1) Do international peer-reviewed academic journals not count as Reliable Sources? (2) What would/could be the conflict-of-interest? Gumum (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (1) Research published in an academic journal is a Primary Source. Primary sources have caused a lot of problems for us in the past, so we limit where and how they may be used. Our policy on Primary Sources begins: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability. The short summary of our Notability policy requires an article topic has received significant coverage in (multiple) reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Transparallel processing only cites primary sources by a single author, and as far as I could determine the additional sources in Transparallel mind don't mention the that concept. My Google search turned up no independent sources to support either topic.
 * (2) Our Conflict of Interest policy begins with Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships. Someone with a conflict of interest isn't the most impartial person to decide whether we should have an article, or how it should be written. I'll move further discussion of the COI software alert to usertalk. Alsee (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (ad 1) I understand the criteria. with which it is hard to argue -- except that it would be a pity to loose these well-founded alternatives to Quantum computing (which, unlike Transparallel processing, is not yet feasible) and the highly controversial Quantum mind idea. In other words, I hope for your clemency.
 * (ad 2) The general definition of COI is clear, but I don't see how it would apply to this particular case. That external link simply refers to anthropological information relevant to the subject. Gumum (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  04:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete both articles. Van der Helm's transparallel processing article was published in 2004. The ideas have not become notable (that is, written about in depth by people independent of the author) in the succeeding 11 years. Wikipedia is not a place to make things known. Articles here are about concepts that are already well known. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The material has a whiff of crankery: I can't really understand what he is saying at all, then we come to the Example (stacking the pencils) which is mundane in the extreme (I and probably thousands of others have thought of it long ago) and hard to relate to the supposed subject. Lacking obvious notability I do not think this is WP-worthy. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: need more opinions--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no harm in informing the general WP public about an already feasible form of classical computing with the same computing power as promised by quantum computers (I don't think that Imaginatorium or many others have thought of that).  However, I acknowledge that this page relies -- too narrowly for WP -- on primary sources. I already decoupled it from other pages, and as far as I am concerned, this page can be deleted. Gumum (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete  due to lack of notability and sources. I am of the opinion that this does not pass muster. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2015 (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.