Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematical model of the guitar

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. Sr 13 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical model of the guitar

A7 I believe... anyway just look at the article Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 02:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage by independent sources Corpx 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly an unremarkable article. It does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 03:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A7 it is Giggy _U^CP 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know much about Wiki policies but in 25 years as a professional guitarist and music teacher this thesis has never come to my attention, it is extremely obscure. RichardJ Christie 09:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We learn that the string length and successively the fret scale are directly connected with all the other dimensions of the instrument, as are the body length, bout and waist widths, soundhole diameter etc. affecting considerably the acoustic resonance output of the constructed guitar. In other words, the size and shape of a guitar determine the way it sounds. I suspect the paper may go into a bit more detail, but these matters might be more profitably added to the guitar article in chief. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for random admin Snow or speedy take your pick ;)--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 15:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Possibly this could be developed into something interesting if it actually explained the content of the proposed model. Michael Hardy 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Snow or speedy" is an inappropriate comment when so little time has passed since nomination. Michael Hardy 17:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re:original nom AfD is not necessary for speedy deletions, as one of the templates in the {{db}} family should do. Unless this was a contested speedy. Morgan Wick 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Snow may be inappropriate, speedy is not, as the article does not assert notability, fails A7. I just wanted to make sure with an AfD--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree this is an A7. It could have been speedy deleted, but the nominator was unsure and looked for other opinions at AfD. He is to be commended for doing that, rather than criticised. It doesn't really matter whether you call it "speedy" or "snow": there isn't much point in continuing this AfD. Geometry guy 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author of this article has commented on the talk page of the article.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 19:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He also commented in the article text. He writes:
The article "mathematic model of the guitar" which I wrote and has been proposed for deletion is referring to an international matter where the inventor published this work In English and German bearing the title "The Physics of the Guitar" in a recognized and music orientated German magazine: "DAS MUSIKINSTRUMENT" in 1984 and also he presented for five days this work at the international music exhibition: "MUSIK MESSE" in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1983. He also gave a press conference in the events of the exhibition where Jose Ramirez who was present confirmed that this work is mainly scientific and it is directly connected with the tradition of guitar construction, possessing mathematic constructional data useful for the acoustic behavior of any guitar. The inventor also gave seminars concerning this work to respected teachers and students at the "College of Furniture" in London in 1983 and also gave a seminar to more than 80 luthiers and guitarists of England, invited by George Clinton of "GUITAR" magazine. Jose Ramirez has also written a critic note as a dedication to the inventor and his work. All these are facts and your editors can check them out. My answer to your editors remarks that they never heard of this work is exactly this: just because one has never heard of an important event concerning his own work does not mean that the event did not take place". Any time I can supply you with recorded, published data concerning all the above, if you eventually decide not to delete the article. It will be a pleasure for me to receive the feedback of your editors on the matter. Thank you for your time and remarks.Blazaki 19:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My further thoughts are that the author may well know something about the acoustics of guitars, but that still, this is information that belongs to the article about guitars, generally; the paper may well be a valuable reference, but not in itself a good subject for its own article. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your further thoughts dear editor, I would like to inform you that I had written this exact information of the article in the article which you propose "guitar" and specifically under the section "Neck". As you can easily check this out although I was very specific, bold and informative and as required by the Encyclopedia's standards within the specific scope of the subject, everything which I wrote was deleted from the article "guitar". The general impression I get is that there is a lot of confusion on a very clear cut matter. Furthermore, I had also written an article entitled "Yorgos Kertsopoulos" and in this article iI was very clear cut and bold defining that this person is the inventor of the "mathematical model of the guitar". Also this article was deleted by your team and as an outcome this specific name is recorded as continuous "stubs" by your computerized system, something which is not nice to happen for a specific name which has a recorded history of specific factual donations to public knowledge.Your editor Siva 1979 remarks and criticizes as unremarkable a work which has gained international acclaim and recognition already since 1983.If you do not want me to write any more information either for this work or the inventor I would appreciate it if you could boldly inform me because my only intention is to support with my efforts the general information and communication of knowledge through your very respectable encyclopedia. I am not in any sense trying to promote a promoter. It is out of my intentions. Thank youBlazaki 20:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have an article, "physics of the guitar", which covers guitar physics. Given the musical interests of many physicists and mathematicians, it is hardly surprising that there is a body of research into stringed instruments, including piano, guitar, and especially the violin. (See Catgut Acoustical Society.) One of the pioneers was Max Mathews, originally at Bell Labs, later at Stanford. Then the Karplus-Strong string synthesis algorithm dealt with the plucking used for guitars. That was elaborated by Julius Smith in his digital waveguide synthesis. Since Smith is, himself, an accomplished guitarist, it is hardly surprising that he has paid special attention to the study of that instrument. The point is, there is a great deal to be said about physics and mathematical models of the guitar, but we see no evidence of such knowledge in this stub; if we did, it should be merged. --KSmrq^T 21:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the best thing to do would be to contribute the additional reference to the article just mentioned. DGG (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment on A7 The nom was right not to speedy it, for A7 (non notable) does not apply to books, or to theories, just real people, groups, bands, clubs, companies, and websites. See WP:CSD, and if anyone want to propose additional criteria , the talk page for that policy is the place. DGG (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article said something specific about the mathematical theory, I doubt we'd see all these "delete" votes. Michael Hardy 01:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contrary to what some people above assert, this does not appear to overlap with physics of the guitar. The latter article is rather weak, so I'm surprised to see people acting as if it already covers everything. If this gets deleted and if I every learn anything about the theory, I'll restore the article and put specifics into it. Michael Hardy 01:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If by "some people" you mean me, I agree that the physics article is weak; the line of research I described is not covered, which is one reason I mentioned it. If you are arguing that a physical model and a mathematical model might be distinct, FM synthesis would emphatically support that claim; but I would still argue that it would be better to augment the physics article than to retain the article in question. --KSmrq^T 04:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWell, certainly that would be the best case scenario(having a good article on this subject). If the current article is improved to the point where it is actually about the mathematics, I am sure the delete votes would go away. However the current article simply isn't encyclopedic. It basically says that if you change the way a guitar is made, the sound it produces is different...and apparently there is a mathematical correlation to each type of change. This information alone does not deserve an article and can be found already elsewhere.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 01:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not just that there is a mathematical relationship; it's that someone knows what it is and wrote a book about it. Michael Hardy 03:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  The book, whatever its worth, is but one source (uncited). Contrast that with the recent Ph.D. dissertation of Erkut. While it is not unheard of for older masterpieces of mathematics, written before their time, to be rediscovered, this stub is very poorly written, and absurdly focused on one work to the exclusion of a long history of research. (Chladni's work is surely relevant; Helmholtz is a pivotal figure; and Pythagoras himself is often credited with the discovery of the mathematical relationship between the length of a vibrating string and its pitch.) --KSmrq^T 20:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: publication of an article does not render the article itself notable. This content would only be notable if its thesis had been the subject of discussion in other independent reliable sources. As it is, this fails the notability criterion. In any case, we have an article physics of the guitar for dealing with guitar physics already, so a new article is not needed. -- Karada 22:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have contested a speedy deletion; I think this one should be discussed. I agree with the nominator that it should be deleted (useful comment can go to physics of the guitar). CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you people ought to seriously consider the possibility that Yorgos Kertsopoulos and the writer of the article, Blaziki, are one and the same person (see how everything added points at Kertsopoulos, the article he wrote about himself has already been deleted). Check out the contribution dates of both editors. I thought there were guidelines in regard to using Wiki for self-promotion and in regard to sock puppetry. 121.72.245.220 06:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC) RichardJ Christie 06:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One reason to doubt they're the same person is that the article says so little. I'd expect the author of the book to say a lot more than that. Michael Hardy 05:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are the same person. Blazaki rolls up on 12 July and adds links to Kertsopoulus videos on youtube, Kertsopoulus thesis (subject above), inserts photos of Kertsopoulus , writes an article on Kertsopoulus. Stops editing on 14-16 July and suddenly Kertsopoulus arrives as editor and carries on the process even going to extent of writing an article on himself playing Albeniz. These get rightly deleted. Then Blazaki resumes on 17 July and re-inserts the Youtube links to Kertsopoulus performances disguising the fact that they are played by Kertsopoulus . Go figure. RichardJ Christie 09:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The writer of the article is Blazaki and not the inventor himself as remarked by an editor. Yorgos Kertsopoulos did try to edit at wikipedia and had many deletions of his editing, but that does not mean that he writes as Blazaki. I happen to be an associate of the inventor and this hopefully justifies my writing in meeting the standards of the encyclopedia. Is it unacceptable for someone associated with the inventor and his work to be able to edit specifically concerning this factual recorded and published important work and its inventor? Please excuse me for taking much space in “text” and “gallery” Kb’s, but it is necessary to support my case for non-deletion of the article. Please find below .jpg format information of the English publication of the “Mathematic model of the Guitar” by DAS MUSIKINSTRUMENT. I prepared this exclusively for the “discussion page” (and not the article since the article is tagged for deletion): a) a summary, b) full readable pages and the magazine front cover, c) a .jpeg showing all the pages and the front cover of the magazine grouped together and d) Mr. Jose Ramirez’s dedication to this specific work of the inventor. All these are recorded facts and what seems difficult for me to understand is what is really more “obscure” as one-editor remarks concerning my article. Is it my writing of the article or is it really the ignorance itself that one guitarist or many aficionados of the guitar, might today possess (year 2007) (as already expressed by the editor himself) on a subject so closely interrelated with mathematics, guitar making, acoustics etc.; even so, when this subject has been internationally presented in an international exhibition: MUSIK MESSE (Frankfurt-Germany, 1983), at the College of Furniture in England (1983), at seminars to English luthiers and guitarists (1983), published by an international magazine in English and German (1984) and received publicity by the international press conference where it was presented (MUSIK-MESSE, 1983) and also received such a recognition from Mr. Jose Ramirez (April 8, 1983), all of these happening 24 years ago (year 1983)? I have posed a question; it is up to the kind editor who remarked about my “obscure” article to answer if he wishes. It would be helpful I believe for all people in the discussion to realize what exactly would end up to be more “obscure”, in the end of this discussion, no matter what your respectable final decision for deletion or not will be. Many of the editors have never heard of this work and this is natural. This happens in many if not in all of the situations for any work in any field. However, many guitar makers have made their work better by using and applying this mathematic model in their guitar making and work, because they have read about it and because it certainly possesses many acoustic functions. From the first page of the published work which I have uploaded for you one can read: …At the press conference given by the author (Musik Messe, February 1983) Mr. Jose Ramirez stated: “This prospect here presented, has all the traditional measurements and proportions of Torres. It is the starting point and the basis, which leads to the ideal guitar. The way though to the ideal guitar is through this basis». Therefore, the question arises: what is the real scope and prospect of an encyclopedia? Is it not to record specific important works and facts, which have been proven helpful to science, to the arts, to tradition, that provide concrete new information to specialized with the subject people and also to make these facts known to the rest of the world, specifically to those people that had not as yet the opportunity to learn about them? This was the intention behind the writing of this article and the facts that support my case can easily prove this. If you delete the article, all of your editors will have become richer in knowledge and experience from the information I supplied specifically only to you and then you will have deleted this knowledge from the rest of the readers of the encyclopedia. You really think that the loser will end up being the inventor of the work or the writer of this article? Please allow me to humbly say: I do not think so. Of course, the article can be deleted; this though will not delete the historic facts. These remain calm and relaxed in their presence. I recommend non-deletion of the article and also to give me the permission to enrich it with only limited informational facts, which will in my opinion, upgrade wikipedia’s offer to its readers. Whatever your decision will be in the end of this discussion, Best regards, Thank you.Blazaki 12:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I happen to be an associate of the inventor" - yeah sure. I rest my case. It's up to Wiki if they want to be taken for mugs. RichardJ Christie 12:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final answer

All the .jpg's that were uploaded to this page specifically for supporting the non-deletion of the article were deleted. The question is more than obvious:why? All the editors involved with this specific page cannot view the information which supports this matter. Why were these .jpg's deleted when it was specified that they are exclusively for the encyclopedia readers and they were uploaded and linked to this specific discussion page and not to the article? How can an editor support the case for non-deletion of an article if the material which supports and proves the correctness of the case is deleted? Isn't there any editor who can see that at least in my case you have not provided a fair play in a just discussion? That is the least that should be able to be provided on such a matter. Under such conditions I would vote myself dear editors, for the deletion of the article. Again and lastly, Best regards and thank you for your attention and time.Blazaki 21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, take a look at the images' image pages and click the log link. For the most part, they seem to have been deleted because of bad licencing. We have strict restrictions on the use of images in order to avoid legal problems; FU images in deletion debates does not appear to be kosher at all. See WP:FU and Wikipedia:Images. Morgan Wick 23:40, 22 July 2007 (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.