- 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. Tone 12:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unit of knowledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pure original research. While there are various uses of the phrase "unit of knowledge" found in books, journals, and websites, the uses appear not to be defined, cohesive topics, but rather unrelated, self-contained uses for the task at hand (even if "defined" logically or mathematically). --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find any sources for the concept or the notation. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 20:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi everyone. I had fun writing this article but I am well aware of the moderation that most typically happens under these circumstances. Yes, I did come up with the term and I am somewhat comforted that you guys know that it is original research. It's pretty cool in my opinion and I make use of this concept daily while I'm at work. I'd like to retain this article in its entirety if at all possible. I, personally, don't think that there is anything in there that hinders the ideology behind someone who may make use of the term. If you guys want to participate in building on this I'd like to hear what you have to say. Let's not jump on this and delete it immediately though. I've been writing about this subject since 2009. I've published 3 books by now, one of which deals with this field (see scientocracy).Popcorn Sutton (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I agree that your idea is cool, but it's not necessarily something publishable in an encyclopedia (such as Wikipedia) yet. An encyclopedia is meant as a compilation of prior knowledge, not a generator of new knowledge. Take a look at the policy guideline linked to in the nomination, Wikipedia:No original research. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 21:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm trying to let you guys know that this is not only my own philosophy. This has been a very pervasive concept. I can't tell you the degree of acceptance that a lot of people have towards this area of science and of the occupation that people who have this knowledge can get. This is data science. It's going to be very useful for a lot of people. The demand for this type of knowledge is sky rocketing and I think that it's going to be useful for other people who are interested. Popcorn Sutton (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—Wholly WP:OR. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. Wikipedia is not the place for new ideas; belongs in Wordpress article or elsewhere; was it in Google Knol at one time? I continue to listen to college lecture courses such as from Modern Scholar and The Teaching Company on many subjects including math and statistics, and this is the first time I've come across this unit of knowledge statistical idea, which confirms my sense that this topic is original research along with the statements above and the decided lack of references. Too bad Google Knol shut down. Topic does not meet GNG requirements.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but let the writer copy it to his userspace. Since he has published about it, it may very well become a notable concept in time and if so, then there's an article nearly ready to go. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this unencyclopedic twaddle but then redirect to least publishable unit. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Save it please. I've seen countless sources where this topic is being discussed and taught to academia. Please, don't forget that I've been writing about this concept (among a lot of others) since 2009. I have 3 publications by this point and have sold/given away well over 500 of those copies. This concept is being taught alongside pattern recognition and machine learning. It's not only my own philosophy (as I have stated above) and since no one else is contributing to the article, I'm taking it upon myself to provide the citations. I had two of them this morning but by the time I got to work I have forgotten all about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcorn Sutton (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as classic WP:OR. -- 101.117.89.252 (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NOT. CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is really unfortunate. I've spent so much time on this thought. I've tried to remove any hint of this being original research. I think that we should at least save portions of this for Wikipedia. The term is being used pretty often. No one is giving any suggestion of improving the article. I'd like to hear at least one suggestion of what we should do to the article to make it acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcorn Sutton (talk • contribs) 16:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. About improving the article. Well here's a thought: I do not understand the first paragraph. Not one iota. While I am only a handyman, I have been educated at the world's foremost institution of higher learning and I therefore am not clueless. Can you please explain to me what the following paragraph means?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The term unit of knowledge is often brought up in the study of data science, statistical mechanics, cognitive science, computational neuroscience, artificial intelligence, computational linguistics, and computer science. The term is interchangeable with concept as well as the phrase "bit of information". A unit of knowledge is equal to any sequence of occurrences including no sequence of occurrences. A unit is determined to be a point of interest when it is significant (or above a statistical threshold). A point of interest is then determined to be knowledge when the addition of the next occurrence is above the threshold. In Statistics, a unit of knowledge is one portion of a three part equation. (from current article)
- Hmmmm?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Still heartily confused. What is a "sequence of occurrences including none"? What does "mental verb sequences" mean? People think of "unit" meaning one thing, a basic building block, so the idea that a "unit" is a "sequence" can be confusing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A basic formula for defining something (derived from Socratic ideas about the definition of a definition) is something along these lines:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A (name) is a (category) that (point of difference).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Example: A porcupine (name) is an animal (category) that (point of difference from other animals, that is, it has sharp quills; other animals lack this feature). The idea is to explain a new concept (porcupine) by showing its similarity to existing things (category) how it differs from other members of this category (it has quills), with the sense that the definition combines the idea of ANIMAL + QUILLS in the mind to teach about PORCUPINE. So somebody can learn what a porcupine is. So if somebody did not understand the concept of a porcupine, but knew about animals and quills, they'd get what a porcupine was.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, apply the formula to this subject...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A (unit of knowledge -- name of what is trying to be defined) is a (??? -- category) that (??? -- point of difference).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What I am saying is that I do not understand what the category is -- what is "a sequence of occurrences including none", and I do not understand how unit of knowledge differs from others in this category. Is unit of knowledge a philosophical term in the study of knowledge, that is, epistemology? What branch of knowledge does it belong to? Wondering.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (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.