Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YinYang Bipolar Relativity

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. postdlf (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YinYang Bipolar Relativity

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author is promoting a non notable book, no third party references and clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had tagged the article and contacted the author in hopes that they might address the situation, but based on the responses I've received, I don't think there's any improvement to be had. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find significant (or any!) coverage of this publication in reliably-published third-party sources. It does not appear to be a notable publication according to WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as junk science unless shown otherwise. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Have you read the book? If not, what do you base this judgement on? It is needlessly insulting. See also AFD courtesy problem, referred to at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD. --Lambiam 19:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation if the book becomes notable – now is too early to tell whether that is likely to happen. --Lambiam 19:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. This is a classic example of why we discourage conflict of interest editing; in this case from a family member. It is possible that this work might become notable and in the natural course of things find it's way onto Wikipedia, but instead we are going through the AfD process for it now. Seaphoto^Talk 23:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==========

Hi All,

I am the author of the book in question. The person who created the page is related to me. He asked me to explain the matter because he is not in such demanding capacity. It is of course perfectly Ok to delete the page especially if it had violated the rules of Wikipedia. In that case, both the contributor and myself are new here, please accept our apology (Sorry. I still don't know how to sign my name after the message). If it is OK for me to give any explanation, please note the following:

(1) There is valid reference (2nd source) on the page with publisher and ISBN numbers (publisher link is removed).

(2) For notability, the book is based on mostly referreed journal and conference papers some of which have been cited by distinguished professors at UC-Berkeley, U of Michigan, France, … etc. The book has just been published this month, there is already at least one journal citation to it:

Reference Journal: Appl. Comput. Math., V.10 0-34 By author ： Professor in Belgium Journal Link: http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=578&q=Kerry%EF%BC%8C+Belgium%EF%BC%8C+YinYang+bipolar+relativity&btnG=Google+Search

(3) The word "YinYang" or (YY) has appeared in Science, Nature, Cell and other top journals many times in last two decades. One IEEE fellow has been awarded for the work on YinYang harmony learning (Scholarpedia). YinYang Bipolar Relativity has survived for more than 5000 years without a formal logical foundation (I know a Nobel Laureate used a YinYang logo for his book cover). My book presents a systematic formal logical foundation based on published journal and conference papers (some part is cited by authority in Scholarpedia). That meets the standard of (2nd and 3rd souces).

(4) The concept of YinYang is in the center of quantum mechanics and binary numbers used by Leibniz (Co-founder of calculus with Newton) and Niels Bohr (father figure of quantum mechanics). There are similar pages in Wikipedia. Here is an example: "Quantum Philosophy is a book by the physicist xxxxx, in which he aims to show the non-specialist reader how modern developments in quantum mechanics allow the recovery of our common sense view of the world. ..."

(5) Both the contributor and myself, as newbies, hope to learn more about Wikipedia. If anyone would help improving the page or explain why it should be deleted we would be very grateful. It only has a couple dozen lines, hope someone can point out what is wrong.

(6)Some reader might deem YinYang as a Chinese thing. That is not true anymore. It is not Beijing University but Harvard Medical School where a ubiquitous genetic agent was discovered and named Yin Yang 1 (Wikipedia: YY1) which has been widely referenced by articles in top journals including but not limited to Nature, Science, and Cell. It is not Tsinghua University but MIT campus where a YinYang Pavilion created by American Artist Dan Graham is housed. It was not a Chinese politician but legendary German mathematician Leibniz who invented the modern binary numeral system and attributed his invention to YinYang hexagrams. It was not a founding father of China but a founding father of quantum mechanics − legendary Danish Physicist Niels Bohr − who first brought YinYang into quantum theory for his complementarity principle regarding particle-wave duality.

Author of the Book in question— Author of the Book in question (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The problem with the article is not with the content, but with the topic. In general, we only accept articles on a topic if is "notable", which is Wikipedia jargon for: the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See our General notability guideline. How this can be interpreted for books is worked out in some detail here, although this mostly applies to non-academic books. I hope this clarifies the issue. --Lambiam 18:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzjz243 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wp:OR and no proven notability from tertiary sources. Nergaal (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2011 (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.