![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The entire main article is reminiscent of the Sokal hoax. Anyone who doesn't see that doesn't know the subject matter very well. The only question is whether it's an actual hoax or whether the author really does think he's on to something important.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.100.148 ( talk) 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Completely a hoax. It pretends to be about the Triune Continuum Paradigm, and yet it makes no effort to tells us anything about the paradigm, only its effects. Why is there any debate about deleting this? 64.71.2.189 ( talk) 20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sandstein,
You have proposed to delete the article about the Triune Continuum Paradigm from Wikipedia based on the following comment: "Non-notable research; exercise in self-promotion by the author".
As for the first statement ("Non-notable research"), could you clarify: what criterion in WP:GNG does this article violate? I double checked the 5 criteria before deciding to publish the article and triple checked them again now, - in my oppinion all the criteria are fulfilled by the article.
As for the second statement ("exercise in self-promotion by the author"), I have resolved this concern in the revision from 21:55, 16 April 2009. This revision does not mention the author of the paradigm any more. Now the paradigm's authorship can only be found from the verifiable reliable sources that are listed in References section. The sources are all refereed academic publications by international publishers who are comletely independent from the paradigm's author, thus the sources cannot be considered as a self-promotion by the author.
Looking forward to receive a timely responce from your side, in order to settle this divergence before the deletion deadline.
Regards,
Andrey Naumenko ( Aipetri ( talk) 22:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC))
Hi Andrew. Now the article will stay for now, I tagged it with an orphan tag. This tag can be removed if three article link to this page, which I just fixed. However, at the moment I have the feeling this article is orphan in more then one way. This article is rather isolated, in the whole of existing Wikipedia articles in the field of systems science and modeling. I wonder if this can be solved here...!?
I read the "Triune Continuum Paradigm" item in the Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, where I got the picture the paradigm wants to offer a foundation for systems modelling, maybe even offer a reference model such as the Meta-Object Facility for UML. Or maybe it can be developed into a reference model. One thing I didn't understand from the article is, what the result is from applying the paradigm to UML, RM-ODP and SEAM...? Does it alter these items? Or create something new?
I do think it would be nice if this article, would be more embedded in the Wikipedia. I have been thinking about writing an article about systems modeling myself. Maybe we can exchange some ideas about this. I would be interested in your ideas about this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 19:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. I will remove the orphan tag again.
Ok, thanks for explaning. I just added the texts from R.M. Dijkman (2006) to the article with links to Alloy and formal semantics. I think it would be nice if this article would explain more about the general idea and similair ideas in other literature then your own. There should be a balance in the references you use. I think eventually there shouldn't be more then maybe say 25% references to your own work. Then there is a balance. This is a base for any encyclopedic article. To bring some balance to the article I removed two references, and I will maybe even remove more. Some thing have to change, if this article wants to last. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. to make this article more encyclopedic, I think an first paragraph about the general idea of paradigms and conceptual frameworks for system modeling could help, maybe with a summary of existing paradigms.
In the Introduction section, the first paragraph is a quote that is pretty much repeated in the second paragraph. Would it be possible to remove one of them in favor of the other without losing any quality? L1ght5h0w ( talk) 16:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
"Thus, for an existent modeling framework, the paradigm allows to test the framework against..."
Maybe it's just me, but is this the underlined part correct? Just sounds odd to me. L1ght5h0w ( talk) 16:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The entire main article is reminiscent of the Sokal hoax. Anyone who doesn't see that doesn't know the subject matter very well. The only question is whether it's an actual hoax or whether the author really does think he's on to something important.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.100.148 ( talk) 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Completely a hoax. It pretends to be about the Triune Continuum Paradigm, and yet it makes no effort to tells us anything about the paradigm, only its effects. Why is there any debate about deleting this? 64.71.2.189 ( talk) 20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sandstein,
You have proposed to delete the article about the Triune Continuum Paradigm from Wikipedia based on the following comment: "Non-notable research; exercise in self-promotion by the author".
As for the first statement ("Non-notable research"), could you clarify: what criterion in WP:GNG does this article violate? I double checked the 5 criteria before deciding to publish the article and triple checked them again now, - in my oppinion all the criteria are fulfilled by the article.
As for the second statement ("exercise in self-promotion by the author"), I have resolved this concern in the revision from 21:55, 16 April 2009. This revision does not mention the author of the paradigm any more. Now the paradigm's authorship can only be found from the verifiable reliable sources that are listed in References section. The sources are all refereed academic publications by international publishers who are comletely independent from the paradigm's author, thus the sources cannot be considered as a self-promotion by the author.
Looking forward to receive a timely responce from your side, in order to settle this divergence before the deletion deadline.
Regards,
Andrey Naumenko ( Aipetri ( talk) 22:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC))
Hi Andrew. Now the article will stay for now, I tagged it with an orphan tag. This tag can be removed if three article link to this page, which I just fixed. However, at the moment I have the feeling this article is orphan in more then one way. This article is rather isolated, in the whole of existing Wikipedia articles in the field of systems science and modeling. I wonder if this can be solved here...!?
I read the "Triune Continuum Paradigm" item in the Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, where I got the picture the paradigm wants to offer a foundation for systems modelling, maybe even offer a reference model such as the Meta-Object Facility for UML. Or maybe it can be developed into a reference model. One thing I didn't understand from the article is, what the result is from applying the paradigm to UML, RM-ODP and SEAM...? Does it alter these items? Or create something new?
I do think it would be nice if this article, would be more embedded in the Wikipedia. I have been thinking about writing an article about systems modeling myself. Maybe we can exchange some ideas about this. I would be interested in your ideas about this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 19:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. I will remove the orphan tag again.
Ok, thanks for explaning. I just added the texts from R.M. Dijkman (2006) to the article with links to Alloy and formal semantics. I think it would be nice if this article would explain more about the general idea and similair ideas in other literature then your own. There should be a balance in the references you use. I think eventually there shouldn't be more then maybe say 25% references to your own work. Then there is a balance. This is a base for any encyclopedic article. To bring some balance to the article I removed two references, and I will maybe even remove more. Some thing have to change, if this article wants to last. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. to make this article more encyclopedic, I think an first paragraph about the general idea of paradigms and conceptual frameworks for system modeling could help, maybe with a summary of existing paradigms.
In the Introduction section, the first paragraph is a quote that is pretty much repeated in the second paragraph. Would it be possible to remove one of them in favor of the other without losing any quality? L1ght5h0w ( talk) 16:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
"Thus, for an existent modeling framework, the paradigm allows to test the framework against..."
Maybe it's just me, but is this the underlined part correct? Just sounds odd to me. L1ght5h0w ( talk) 16:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)