Testwiki:Articles for deletion/Fractal fraction

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. henrik•talk 06:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fractal fraction

Template:La – (View log)

(Template:Find sources)

(Contested prod.) I get no relevant Google scholar hits or Google books hits. In fact, the only relevant Google hits seem to be to Domingo Gomez's blog. The subject of the article seems to be original research, not covered in any reliable sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. I created the article because I too could not find any information on the web. I tried several search terms: "recursive fractions", "continued fractions", "fractal fractions" and "fractions" (hopeless, only grade school sites). That does not mean that it does not exist only that I do not know the correct search term.

  This seemed to me to be a reasonable mathematics topic in that the formula given seems possible. I hope that before it is deleted someone with a strong background in this branch of mathematics can tell us (me) what this is and how to name it.

  Nick Beeson (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics has been informed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. In addition to the nominator's comment on the absence of WP:RS, as I (just) wrote on the article talk page, in the illustration, a "simple" calculation shows that if the nth level has the numbers a and b, the "convergents" satisfy

  $c_n=c_{n-1}\left\{\begin{array}{c}\times \\ /\end{array}\right\}(a+b)$

  depending only on the parity of n, the concept has no value. (This analysis falls under WP:CALC, even though it's my analysis.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  The concept in the book may not be the same as in the illustration, but it's not covered in scholarly literature. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. @Nick: I think there may be a misunderstanding involved here. For a topic to be suitable for a wiki page, it must satisfy notability criteria. The fact that you could find no information about this on the web does not mean there should be a wiki page on it, on the contrary. Tkuvho (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• …an iterative process of representing denominator as the sum of two integers… this obviously has to be deleted. Also, Fractal fraction probably constitutes a pure original research and does even not correspond to findings of the obscure book, mentioned as the source. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: Google books search did not turn up any relevant results for the term and the source given seems to have a non-existent ISBN number. The article does not define the precise meaning of expression and, as pointed out above, when you take a reasonable guess as to what the convergents might be a quick calculation shows they don't actually converge. Plus my intuition tells me that if something this simple was useful it would have been known for hundreds of years as with infinite products and continued fractions.--RDBury (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  After viewing the YouTube video I'm sure that it's nonsense. I don't think only 132,000 views are adequate to qualify it as an Internet meme (although it is over 9000. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  Either the YouTube video wasn't there or I missed it when I reviewed the article but having seen it I'm pretty confident it's a hoax similar to Dihydrogen monoxide. (The "Wau" in the video is just 1). It never explains in what sense the fractal fraction is equal to Wau but I think what is meant is that if you terminate at any step by putting 2 for each denominator you get 1. In light of this I think the article qualifies for Speedy deletion as a hoax, though I'm sure the article was created in good faith by someone who was taken in.--RDBury (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delete (G1): A YouTube video is not a reliable reference, and this is an obvious WP:HOAX. -- 202.124.73.151 (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree that the video is an obvious hoax, although that was only added later. I think it's unlikely that the original source, Domingo Gomez's book, is a hoax. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  Comment. From what I can tell about the book (as it doesn't have a real ISBN, it's hard to tell), it describes a genuine continued-fraction-like expression with coefficient taken from the coeeficients of a polynomial to produce a root of that polynomial. It's still not consideed interesting by most mathematicians, but there are real (i.e., peer-reviewed) mathematical papers which refer to the concepts in the book. It doesn't look at all like the "continued fraction" in the figure, and it appears (at first glance) to converge. The "continued fraction" in the book might have some mathematical interest, but we'd have to find a name for it. This concept is a non-notable hoax. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - I am sure the article was created in good faith, but this simply doesn't meet our notability benchmark. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - No reliable sources. Perhaps, if there is something noteworthy and sourced, it could be added to one or more of the articles on fraction, continued fraction, Stern-Brocot tree, etc. Virginia-American (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps one of the worst keep arguments for an article creator to claim is "I created the article because I too could not find any information on the web."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. There is currently, Feb. 13, 2012, a viral video which has received 150,000 views in 5 days. That is 30,000 a day. I think that makes the video topic notable, and worthy of an article explaining what a "Fractal fraction" is. I did not know and could not figure it out, even though I completed eight math courses as an undergraduate, and have a doctorate in biophysics (a highly math dependent field). The video has earned 2,100 comments, yet none of the top 25 explained it. Since there are currently only three results for a Google search of "fractal fraction", one the video hoax, another a questionable self-published "book", and this article, I believe that this Wikipedia article is needed and reasonable. Many of the people who see the video will come to Wikipedia to find out more. After extensive rewriting this article will now tell them that it is a hoax.

I acted entirely in good faith. I edit frequently and have for six years. I try my best to be a good citizen. This is my last defense of this article. I have no intention of pursuing this any further. Nick Beeson (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have stricken the duplicate "keep", since you !voted already up above. -- 202.124.75.46 (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Just as a followup on the video, it was made by Vi Hart who normally uses her superpowers for good instead of evil and her YouTube channel has a substantial following with a number of number of math-themed (and non-hoax) videos. There are at least two WP articles that list one of her video as an external link, though using one as a reference is probably not a good idea.--RDBury (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't evil, just funny. But not notable. -- 202.124.75.46 (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ahem. 50,000 views is not a lot nowadays. This is not a notable hoax. Delete. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Any actual useful mathematical concepts belong at Generalized continued fraction, but there is nothing useful in the hoax/joke video or in the article. Nor is there any indication (like a news story) that the joke/hoax is notable. -- 202.124.75.46 (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Good intentions are not a reason to keep an article that appears to fail pretty much every criterion. Wikipedia'd be a text equivalent of Youtube if it was acceptable, but fortunately is not an unfiltered repository of arbitrary trivia. — Quondum^☏✎ 14:05, 15 February 2012 (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.