Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elastic binary tree

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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic binary tree

Article appears to be based on original research by article author, W. Tarreau, with citations only to his own web site. Also, no citation of independent, verifiable sources to establish notability. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's true that there are few users of this tree structure right now, but at least one of my open-source projects is relying on it and being used in many hosting sites, so I think the source is verifiable ; code is freely available and is proven to work. I decided to post it here because several people have already asked to me how it worked, and I found it more logical to complete the exhaustive list of trees on Wikipedia than to add this to random places. I could complete the users list later since I already have other projects using this technique with a lot of success.Wtarreau (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly original research. Also, unless its been published somewhere or reported on in the media, it does not meet either notability or verification requirements. Wtarreau may have come up with something very useful, but until it is published or written about, it is not appropriate encyclopedic content. Cbl62 (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How isn't this published if widely distributed software already makes use of it ? How is it different from Red-black_tree for instance ? I'm not contesting the rules, I just want to understand.Wtarreau (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be completely different from Red-black trees for encyclopedia purposes, for at least these reasons. Red-Black trees have been written about in academic publications, including a book published by the MIT Press and McGraw Hill, and in articles published by Stanford University and San Diego State University. By way of contrast, the elastic binary trees article appears to be based on your own original research publishsed on your personal web site. Cbl62 (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So you are saying that we cannot document on Wikipedia something which has not already been documented in a book ? This sounds strange to me, it would completely defeat the encyclopedia purpose, it sounds more like bookmarks then. Well, if that's really the rule, let's delete it and be done with it. What a waste of time trying to contribute :-( Wtarreau (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, an encyclopedia is not the place for original research that has not been published. This is not intended to suggest that your research is not valid or valuable. You can read about Wikipedia's standards for original research here: Wikipedia:No original research. Cbl62 (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have already read this link twice and still do not find any issue with this rule (otherwise I would not be here asking you to explain them to me). Perhaps the problem comes from the word "published". From the beginning, I consider this work as "published" since the code is readily available, and is already used in programs shipped with the some of the main Linux distributions. If you it is intended to mean something different, could you please explain how I am supposed to understand "published" then ? And last, what should I do for the article to be acceptable. Wtarreau (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia isn't a free web hosting service. The source offered is self-published and therefore not a reliable source. WillOakland (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OK I give up. My intent was not to get free web hosting service, but to place the explanation where people expect to find it. I find it funny that you say the source is unreliable since I documented my work and it can be verified by anyone in publicly available code, and can be seen running in real software. This situation is getting ridiculous. I will put the doc on my site. I'm sorry to have wasted your time trying to do something users have asked me to because it appeared obvious to them and me since Wikipedia is thought to centralize knowledge on everything. It is now clear from all your sayings that it's just an organized collection of bookmarks and copies of already existing documentation, and as such, it makes sense not to add knowledge there, just references. BTW, please note that noone has tried to reply to my simple question : "what should I do for the article to be acceptable". I would have expected a more constructive approach from the moment the article was tagged for deletion. Now I don't care anymore, I have already wasted enough time on this. If someone else decides to document it again later, maybe I'll check his work and complete/fix it, but at least I will not annoy you anymore with this. I'm sorry to have wasted your valuable review time. I understand that moderation is needed to try to maintain quality, and that being mainly focused on deletion helps a lot for that. I still find it more exciting to create and I'm going back to do that. Thanks. Wtarreau (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Wtarreau: I am sorry you have not had a good experience with the AfD process. I have gone through the AfD process with things I've written, and I know that it can appear to be an attack on the value of the work, which it is not. I will try to answer your question. For an article on elastic binary trees to be eligible for inclusion, it needs to be written about/discussed/reported on in verifiable, respected third-party publications. It can't just appear on your own web site or be discussed on a blog. If every theory that someone were to write up on their own web site were to be included in Wikipedia, it would lose credibility as an encyclopedia. We can't just take an editor's word for the fact that his own work is notable and valid. For the content to be encyclopedic, there needs to be something independent and verifiable to establish its notability. Cbl62 (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cbl62 for your response. I never took it for a personal attack, just for an obscure and unexplained rule I could not figure out. I really thought that it was appropriate to document it here since people are already seeing the code in programs they use, and occasionally asking for such documentation. I understand that my own judgement cannot be enough to qualify my own work's validity, that's why I tried to be as factual and neutral as possible. Wtarreau (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite, then delete if not citable

Perhaps the author could add citations linking to the source code that allegedly uses EBT's? I would consider that as evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shentino (talk • contribs)

It would not be, because no independent reliable sources would be involved. WillOakland (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.