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. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boubaker polynomials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The above-captioned article was created and, most importantly, deleted numerous times on a number of wikis (e.g. fr it, sv, de, pt) some time last year (non-notable). It also was the subject of massive sockpuppetry and spamming, particularly on :fr (see fr:Wikipedia:Vandalisme de longue durée/Mmbmmmbm for a detailed list and background story).
The article was lately re-pushed by Luoguozhang, who pretended to be editing from China. Well, a CU showed that it is not really the case, and the user was banned (again) both here and on fr. Then there was the off-wiki legal threat yesterday against the French admin who dealt with the AfD request. If this article gets deleted, I think it would help everyone that re-creation be blocked for the foreseeable future (this has been going on for a year now).

• Notability: H-index of Boubaker polynomials is about 2. Scholar has 17 occurences, 7 of which are actual peer-reviewed articles (the rest look like poster abstracts). All of them are the work of either one of two authors, K Boubaker or KB ben Mahmoud (both from Tunis U.). I looked into Scopus and found that these papers were cited only once or twice, presumably as a form of circular reference.

There has also been a submission to Planet maths with one of the references being... Wikipedia. The matter was reported to project maths but after initial acknowlegement that there were some papers out there the discussion forked into the massive sockpuppettry issue. Thus, I'm putting this back onto the AfD track.
This is not about the reality of these polynomials (which exist by the truckload) but rather the aggressive self-promotion of otherwise non-noted, non particularly notable work. Oops forgot to sign, thx A.R.Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manually fixed nomination about 15 minutes ago. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal: Trim, and merge to Chebyshev polynomials. Concur that they appear not to be used by anyone other than Boubaker. (They differ from the other similar polynomials, such as Lucas polynomials, by being linear combinations of the same Chebyshev polynomials, with only a scale factor of 2 to content with. Lucas polynomials would have to have an imaginary argument if they were to correspond.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is acceptable, but merge and protect redirect seems a reasonable alternative. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : it has been a long vandalism on wikipedia fr. Frankly, the notability is very very weak. All references point to this single author/website which is very active in communicating. I don't think that anyone has really written on these polynoms except this guy and a few of his friends. So delete in my opinion. Poppy (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : no notability whatsoever. A show of vanity. Gede (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't usually take part in his kind of thing here -tho I did with the 2nd nomination (where an old vandal copiously attacked/defamed me under various accounts...)-, but this case is particular. It involves advertising/vandalizing/heavy-sockpuppeting/etc. on several Wikipedias. It's been going on for almost 2 years and even escalated to RL threats recently (tho there could be other occurences I'm not aware of). The article itself has no notability and will most probably be deleted, but due to the many aggravatings activities of the author, I'd like ask the page (and other probable titles) to be protected against recreation too. DarkoNeko x 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The scholarly articles seem more than sufficient to demonstrate notability for me. Also, I'm against a merge into Chebyshev polynomials...that page is already too long. That said, I think this current page is pretty bad...lots of equations and not much prose. That needs to change. Cazort (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is more difficult a choice than can be thought at first glance. It is useful to read again the comments made when the article was recreated and discussed at Project Mathematics. There was nobody to stand up strongly for it, but there were a few participants to underline (rightly) that these polynomials have been used in articles published in peer-reviewed journals. e.g. :"One of the necessary conditions for a paper to be accepted in a peer-reviewed journal is for one's peers to be sufficiently interested in the subject matter so as to believe it merits wide dissemination. (...) I don't see why this article should be in danger of being deleted.". The question might hence be : should Wikipedia blindly include everything that has been mentioned in peer-reviewed journals ? I think not, but this is a rather difficult question. I don't modify my position since previous nomination : accepting such blatant self-promotion puts Wikipedia at risk. French Tourist (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am strongly against Arthur Rubin's proposal to merge with Chebyshev polynomials. While it is not completely obvious to determine whether Boubaker polynomials should be or not included in WP, if the answer happens to be "yes include them", they have not to be included in an important article, which would be a violation of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT : it's important not to give a casual reader of Chebyshev polynomials a hint that Boubaker polynomials are in some way at the same scale of importance than say Lucas polynomials. Hierarchising information is the main task in building encyclopedic content. French Tourist (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the (correct) impression that Boubaker polynomials are a trivial modification of Chebyshev polynomials gives undue weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I wrote the passage quoted by French Tourist above. I do not myself have any connection to or even any interest in Boubaker polynomials. (I have edited the article, but all of my edits involved reformatting the references, in particular making sure that all authors' names appeared in each reference.) I know relatively little about the sock-puppetry issues, but if anything that seems to be a point in my favor since I think that those issues are quite distinct from this AfD. To answer French Tourist's question: yes, I think that any topic in the mathematical sciences that is cited by at least 10 different papers in peer-reviewed journals has sufficient notability for wikipedia. (More precisely I am less uncomfortable with this statement than with its negation.) I don't see what is gained by deleting this article. Moreover, I completely agree that including this material in the article on Chebyshev polynomials would be giving the topic undue weight. Plclark (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am retracting the above "weak keep" recommendation. I now feel that the present circumstances are so unusual so as to not be well-covered by general policy discussions. I still do think that it would be possible to have an article on a concept that most qualified mathematicians agree is a trivial variant on another mathematical concept, provided that the variant has seemed useful to practitioners in a different field. (For instance the mathematical content of the Hardy-Weinberg law is simply .) But I think there is something strange (and possibly deceptive) going on in the Boubaker polynomial related publications. Plclark (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Hardy–Weinberg law does not say ONLY that. It also says the relevant Markov chain converges to equilibrium in just one step. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Weak keep Keep The notability standards are not intended to judge whether the scholarly work is worthwhile, just whether it is mentioned sufficiently often and specifically enough in reliable sources. For mathematics articles, 10 articles in peer reviewed journals is usually considered sufficient. Even if they are just a trivial modification of Chebyshev polynomials, the fact that so many referees and editors have agreed to publish the material is what we should be considering, not our own viewpoint on the worthiness of the mathematics or on the conduct of its authors. We do not and should not care whether this is good scholarly work; we should only concern ourselves with whether reliable sources have judged it to be worthy of publishing. As an example of a trivial modification that actually has some scholarly dignity, see fundamental pair of periods which is very little more than graphing SL(2,Z) from a strict point of view. We do not have the duty or the responsibility to judge the merit of the original research; we only have the duty of organizing the judgements of the journal editors and textbook authors. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ten articles in peer-reviewed journals would normally be sufficient notability, but they're all by Boubaker himself, and Google scholar only finds 7, according to the nominator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As we have been lied to several times about the authorship of these papers, it does seem believable that the papers themselves were published under false pretenses. I have therefore changed from Keep to Weak Keep. 10 independent, peer reviewed articles, published in reliable, scholarly journals without the likelihood of fraud are clearly sufficient to establish notability of a mathematical concept, no matter who the authors or what the name of the concept. However, it is no longer clear that this is the case. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Looking over the bibliography, WT:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination)#Reference list, I have managed to do cursory verification of enough sources from enough respectable journals. I read through a few of the articles and while they don't strike me as nobel prize work, they also do not strike me as fraud or trickery, etc. I think we can assume that (some of) the articles cited are just fine. For me, there are enough significant coverage in independently edited and published reliable sources to satisfy the notability guideline. JackSchmidt (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The issue of the behavior of the sockpuppets is quite serious, but they have been blocked. Their continued disruptive editing on the article is grounds for a community ban from this topic. However, protecting the article from conflict of interests and disruptive editing is very different from deleting it. Also, the inclusion criteria on frwiki and enwiki are different, and frwiki need not follow our decision at all (from my brief observations, frwiki consensus is clear to delete). JackSchmidt (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment those notability criteria were added to the notability page by an anonymous contributor, and do not reflect any discussion. In fact, I recall a discussion at WT:MATH where OEIS specifically was discredited as a source of notability, although one could make a good case for absence from OEIS being a good source for absence of notability. MathWorld isn't even considered evidence of accuracy. PlanetMath is a Wiki; for the most part, it's named in guidelines becasue it has a compatable GDFL with Wikipedia, so we may copy material from it. Generally, a peer-reviewed book on the subject might be considered evidence of notability, but chapters of peer-reviewed books, and even a large number of (unreferenced) papers on the subject, should rationally not be so considered. But neither the list of claimed notability criteria nor this comment should be on this page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These "Boubaker polynomials" B(2x) are nothing more than the trivial linear combination 4U_n(x) − 6T_n(x) of Chebyshev polynomials. Having an article on these is like having an article titled "Finknottle function" about 4sin(x) − 6cos(x). Mathscinet gives exactly one hit: a paper by Boubaker.r.e.b. (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per R.e.b. Normally I would think a mathematical subject with published papers by three separate parties (Boubaker himself, Slama, and Ganouchi; I don't count the OEIS entries) would be enough for a keep. But in this case we appear to be party to an attempt by Boubaker to promote himself inappropriately as the discoverer of something that he didn't discover. WP:NPOV says that this is too minor a contribution to be included in an article on as important and broadly studied a topic as Chebyshev polynomial, but it also says that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be party to this kind of self-promotion: we should report neutrally on what contribution is made to mathematics by these polynomials. Or in other words, we should say that they are only a trivial combination of Chebyshev polynomials and leave it at that. But a one-sentence article saying that these polynomials are 4U-6T, renamed in a self-promoting way by Boubaker, wouldn't make a satisfactory encyclopedia article, so I think it's best in this case just to delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Due to the rather special circumstances around this article, I underline that in this discussion, everything should be fact-checked. I see you consider as significant the papers of 2008 by Slama and Ganouchi (correct spelling seems to be Ghanouchi). I could not find on the web the tables of contents of International Journal of Heat and Technology for 2008 - by some unhappy circumstance, they have not been refreshed since 2007 on their website [3]. We should not forget that socks of Mr B. editing the article had willingly "forgotten" the name of Boubaker in at least one author list, as results from some independant fact-checking by Jitse Niesen [4]. Hence I fear your naive assertion according to which we know until now papers published by three "independent parties" should not be used as a decision basis unless previously thoroughly checked. Assuming WP:GOODFAITH from KB sockpuppets would not be very reasonable. (As far as I could search myself, Slama coauthored very recently a paper with Boubaker : [5] I have no access to its contents, but reading a line of its bibliography through Google, it seems that the 2008 paper to be found pp. 49-53 in International Journal of Heat Transfer and Technology is coauthored by J. Ghanouchi, H. Labiadh and K. Boubaker). French Tourist (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a good point. Since we have seen such a strong willingness to use sockpuppets here, how are we to believe that the authors of these supposedly independent papers are also not sockpuppets? That only strengthens my feeling that we should delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : I agree with Popo le Chien and French Tourist. DocteurCosmos (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This page is becoming a sock-puppets fest (User:Ting ganZ, user:Twice2222, user:Gilles mecrire that last one being a reference to fr:user:GilleC, a french sysop that that guy harassed in RL recently, and more to come probably) like the 2nd nomination was. This is unsightly. DarkoNeko x 09:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. (Should it be possible to semi-protect the page?) First of all, here are a few explanations. I am not very familiar with the various procedures here on en:, as my mother-wiki is fr:. I mostly come here from time to time for interwikis or light corrections, as part of my activities of creation of categories on fr:. I will not therefore express myself in favor or against the deletion of the article. However, I have seen things here I feel the need to comment.
  1. The fact that IRL, somebody writing from Tunisia has launched what can be interpreted as harassment and smear campaign against me, involving e-mails to professional contacts of mine, has in fact nothing to do with the conservation or deletion of this article. Those are two distinct things. That is what I have already written on the french Administrators' noticeboard. This is a matter of content, and we are not speaking here about the behaviour of this person, but about the content of the article.
  2. In the same line of thought, the "sock show" Future Perfect at Sunrise has mentionned should not be taken into account, unless it is clear that it somehow gives a false impression of notability of these polynomials. I mean the multiplication of sock-puppets has to be ignored and gives no clue about the real notability of the subject of the article. But it gives a bad impression about the article creator, and that impression should have no influence on the final result. Let's focus on the facts that are exposed, not on the person who writes them.
  3. Every polynomial family is a linear combination of Chebyshev polynomial. This is normal, they form a basis. This should not be generally regarded as a criterium for non-notability. However, in this case, the linear combination is very trivial.
  4. As a physicist, I am not a specialist in mathematics. I cannot therefore express a legitimate opinion on the intrinsic quality of the published papers cited in reference. I just notice that most of them are co-written by the inventor of this family. Peer-reviewed publications in theory accept papers that expose something new. The authors may name such or such algorithm or tool (as these polynomials are) as they like. As far as I know, this is not taken into account when the article is reviewed. Therefore, articles co-written by the inventor of these polynomials give in fact, to my mind, no clue about the real notability of the family amongst the mathematical community. This is not the case of papers written by anybody outside the inventor's team. This leads me to only keep three references: the sequences published in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, and the two articles published in the International Journal of Heat & Technology in 2008 (the table of contents of which I have not found inline), by Ganouchi and Slama (references to K.B. Ben Mahmoud being in fact references to Karim Boubaker Ben Mahmoud, Ben meaning "son" in arabic). For information, Ganouchi has written a book prefaced by K. Boubaker. And S. Slama works at the ENIT, and has already had Mr. Boubaker as "tutor".

  I am sorry for having developped so longly on the subject. Please make whatever you want from my remarks ;-) GillesC (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  After careful checking by French Tourist, it appears that the only references to published papers which are not co-signed by Boubaker (under the names Boubaker or Ben Mahmoud) are the computations reported on the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. GillesC (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All references to peer-reviewed articles quoted in Boubaker polynomials have now been checked (thanks the bibliography found in this article [11]). Note that all of them are papers coauthored by Mr Boubaker, (some of them under the signature "K.B. Ben Mahmoud"). French Tourist (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per results of both previous AfDs. And salt this time, too. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as having no independent coverage in the literature. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per French Tourist. Nothing more than a few publications with the same author, no notability that could be confirmed by an independent source. Though my opinion is already towards delete, it is clearly becoming a strong delete when I consider the threats against some admins and the extreme pushing that we can see on various editions (most notably fr and it). Clem23 (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                          Dickson polynomials are Chebyshev ones !!!!

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Boubaker polynomials.... may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Quote: These "are a polynomial sequence established in an attempt to solve a bi-variate heat equation in a particular case of one-dimensional applied physics model". Without getting bogged down in equations, was the attempt successful, and how notable is the particular case? Have there been any spin-offs from this attempt that are of import? Answers in English please, not in mathematical jargon. Peridon (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All peer-reviewed sources are by Boubaker himself. That's not sufficiently notable for me. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWould you change your mind if there are 30 peer-reviewed sources involving more than 30 authors from more than 11 countries ??? Just say Yes or No to save time?Etaittunpe (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't speak for Jitse, but I would be very likely to change my mind if there were a set of papers that mention these polynomials nontrivially and that have many authors all of whom could be shown to be established mathematicians not equal to Boubaker/Ben Mahmoud. But his willingness to use multiple names on the papers we already know about, and the willingness of single-purpose accounts here to use multiple names in this AfD in support of his work, make me disinclined to trust new evidence in the form of new papers by or coauthored by previously unknown authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the 30 peer-reviewed sources are all (co)written by Boubaker then my opinion would not change. I need sources independent of Boubaker to change my opinion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Slight merge to Chebyshev polynomials or delete. I opposed speedy deletion when this most recent iteration of the mess started up. However, that was based on the existence of apparently independent references. As has been shown here, Boubaker quite frequently makes use of pseudonyms; hence, I don't see how I can naively accept those references as independent any longer. Without the references, this is just a variation of Chebyshev polynomials without any assertion of importance. I leave it up to others to decide what, if any content, is useful to merge, but we should not retain this without evidence of independent references; Boubaker's own actions make it quite difficult to establish this. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per all above. Resolute 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or mention briefly in Chebyshev polynomials I'm not a mathematician, but I am interested in the subject (I also read murder mysteries...). When I asked above for a clear English answer to my query, I got the following (copied to here from hidden area as it is non-abusive) (line spacing condensed):

"Hits in the Scientific domain gave these applications (with explanation in simple English) : --Heat transfer spray model: using Bessel and Boubaker polynomials (a thermal device) --Temperature 3D profiling in welds (which means drawing temperature variation) --A Boubaker polynomials (BPES)-related protocol for thin films ( a method for studying the characteristics of the sprayed materials) --Sulfur/selenium substitution effects using (BPES) (a physical-chemical study) --A solution to Bloch NMR flow equations using m-Boubaker polynomials (Medical application) --Properties of β-SnS2 sprayed thin films using Boubaker polynomials (Material science) --Stoichiometry-linked thermal behavior optimisation using Boubaker polynomials(a physical-chemical study) There are also some Mathematical studies.Etaittunpe (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC) o Comment If they are not Notable, at least they have notable applications …" I then posted:

• "Query So are there references for these applications? Would the other polynomials people are talking about not give the same results? Peridon (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)"

So far there has been no response; I therefore conclude that references are not available. This is the opinion of a non-mathematician who can hardly be accused of bias in the matter. The applications given do look reasonably notable to me. But without independent, reliable, and verifiable references they count for nothing, I'm afraid. My apologies to those who may resent an outsider sticking an oar in. I have often found that an outsider's view can be of use (if only by causing amusement at his ignorance...). Peridon (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have received a response from Hilberts giving a list of scientific papers mentioning these polynomials. I am not going to copy the list to here - it may already be in a hidden section. It is available for inspection on my talk page, and will remain there until this discussion is concluded. The papers are mostly not internet linked and I have no access to them. I leave it to those with more knowledge of these things - or better access to them. I have still not had a response from anyone to whether the other polynomials would do the same job. Peridon (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on your talk page. About 26 on the 35 references can be found in 10 sec' on google, and mention Karem Boubaker as author or co-author. In the last 9, 4 have been written by the same person, "Roger Lee Bagula", 1 by Neil J. A. Sloane (who is co-author of one of the four Bagula's paper which is just a copy of one of Boubaker's entry), 1 by A. Bannour (co author of number [6] with KB), and the last three are not, for now, findable directly on the net (but look in the title very similar to Boubaker's paper). Rhadamante (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that many of the Bagula and Sloane ones are not papers at all. They are entries in OEIS, another online encyclopedia that I don't think we should be using to infer notability (it accepts basically anything that is mathematically correct regardless of its significance). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just worked out that Bagula has an Erdős number of 3 if he's co-authored with Sloane who on the Wikipedia article about him is given as being a 2. (I do know about Erdős numbers.) Bagula appears to be a real person and quite a polymath. If not, he's very well constructed. If I knew more maths, I could do a story based on this lot. I'd love to know what's behind all the acrimony and so on. Peridon (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. Note they are not papers co-written or written by Sloane (it'is Hilbert's presentation of theese entries that made me beleive it), but juste entries on OEIS maintained by N. J. A. Sloane on OEIS, which is a strong difference. Rhadamante (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well. at least we're getting the picture a bit clearer - for me at least. Never knew Maths could get so exciting. It's getting like music and religion, isn't it? Peridon (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There's a discussion going on in this AfD's talk page about this list of publications. Seemingly, they all fall into three categories: (1) papers that are definitely by Boubaker, with various co-authors, (2) papers that might be by Boubaker but we're not sure because we can't find enough online information about them and the sockpuppet who gave us the list of papers didn't include authors, and (3) non-papers (OEIS entries). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhadamante has added names to the list on my talk page, and has boldened Boubaker's name in its various forms. I have quite a lot of dealing with people with Arabic names. and it is sometimes difficult to work out which is the first and which the last name (in English terms, that is). That is the reason for the name appearing differently in different places. It is not a reason for any of the alleged sockpuppetry that has gone on. Peridon (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the notability of this family of polynomials cannot be verified by independent sources. No merge as this would represent undue weight. Cenarium (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, same reasons. Zetud (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it has been established that these polynomials are not notable (no independent non-trivial coverage); and salt to prevent further disruption. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per r.e.b. This subject doesn't seem notable to me. After having looked through the first few pages of hits from google, the discussion of these polynomials seems to mostly be a wiki-phenomenon. Thenub314 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2009 (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.