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. Sandstein 20:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems[edit]

Expired prod. However, since the article is a quasi-orphan and is uncategorized, it may not have had the visibility it deserves. The notion itself seems legitimate, although its importance in the field is unclear and certainly not highlighted by the article in its current form. I also suspect that the same idea may be also known under different names. All that being said, I abstain and hope from input by biologists... Pascal.Tesson 04:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I nominated it for deletion as the idea has no notability I can discover in biology.

Pubmed search "Principle of Conjugated Subsystems" = zero hits

Pubmed search "Principle of Conjugated Subsystems" (no quotes) = zero hits

Google scholar search "Principle of Conjugated Subsystems" = zero hits

Scirus search "Principle of Conjugated Subsystems" = zero hits

Google search for "Geodakian conjugated subsystems" = 10 hits, mostly Wiki mirrors.

Google search for "Principle of Conjugated Subsystems" = 17 hits, mostly Wiki mirrors

Sole non-Wiki source on Google is a personal website called "www.geodakian.com", dedicated to promoting the work of Vigen Geodakyan. Tim Vickers 04:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to the above comments, I'd also be concerned about a biological theory published in a journal for cybernetics research - it is unlikely to have been reviewed by appropriately qualified people. JulesH 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement delete: Any adaptive controlling system, which evolutionizes in a variable environment being divided into two conjugated subsystems, specialized according to conservative and operative trends of evolution increases thereby its evolutionary stability as a whole. The English language has lasted a thousand years without the verb evolutionize, but it will not last another thousand unless coinages such as this are obliterated. Can you say complete bollocks? I thought you could. . . - Smerdis of Tlön 13:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. - I saw a discussion on Tim Vickers's user talk page; looked up "Vigen Geodakyan "; read this; started reading Evolutionary theory of sex which said "The theory is based on the concept of asynchronous evolution and The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems"; I clicked on the link and saw that something Evolutionary theory of sex is based on was to be deleted; so I merged it to Evolutionary theory of sex. The next question , I guess, would be if Evolutionary theory of sex should be deleted or not. I don't know. I'm just now looking into this. WAS 4.250 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A point to note is that the person who created this article User:Sashag is the owner of the "www.geodakian.com" website (link to discussion on my talk page) and according to this post about "The Evolutionary Theory of Sex" on a forum, the owner of this website is the son of Vigen Geodakyan. Tim Vickers 16:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh boy... This user seriously needs to be reported to WP:COIN. His sole edits seem to be concerned with linking to geodakian.com and Geodakyan's work and in many cases there has been resistance to these changes. In any case, I am now convinced that the present article should be deleted. Pascal.Tesson 16:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for such an attention to the article. I added notability and corrected grammar. That should close the comment #2 from Smerdis of Tlön.

Comment #1. “biological theory” The Principle is not a theory. Theory of systems is theory. The Principle can be included as a part of it. The application of it is not just biology. It’s much wider, for example in computers it’s RAM – operative and hard drive – conservative. “published in a journal for cybernetics research” – the concept is more about flow of information and system organization, so “by appropriately qualified people” – yes. After that the principle was mentioned in almost every article of Geodakian, published in biological, genetics, mathematical, medical, popular science and systems research. Do not remember any criticism about content.

“Sole non-Wiki source on Google is a personal website www.geodakian.com” There are more than 100 articles just by Geodakian listed on the website. You probably need to see the Citation Index for the other authors for citation. Search should be on author.

Now the good ones: “Expired prod”. – do not quite understand what you mean. Like the scientific principles have expiration date?

“the article is a quasi-orphan and is uncategorized” – agree. It should be categorized, can be combined or made part of another article. System may be?

“The notion itself seems legitimate” – agree. “Its importance in the field is unclear and certainly not highlighted by the article in its current form.” – hope I fixed that.

“the same idea may be also known under different names.” – possible, but for about 40 years I did not come into something similar. May be Yin and Yang concept?

The article is just a short summary and I can put more content if it will not be deleted. It’s a cornerstone for more than ten hypotheses (Tim, you should like it). Please help me make it better. Thanks again. RegardsSashag 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this article is about a biology idea based on a theory concerning computational evolutionary algorithms. I added categories accordingly. WAS 4.250 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if a computer scientist fluent in both English and Russian could help us with sources and translation of terminology. WAS 4.250 23:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These remarks suggest that there may be some controversy as to what this "theory" is about. Computing and biology strike me as only loosely related fields, and the above text claims that this text relates to both somehow. The essentially empty abstractions of the texts in question, with "systems" that "evolutionize" in an "environment" — in other words, a something that does something somewhere — suggest that this theory is word salad rather than anything that contains insights as to how either ecologies or computer work. The merger should in all likelihood also be reverted. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not word salad, but it does claim too much. As a factor in evolution it makes perfect sense from Systemics point of view. But the theory goes way too far in claiming to be the guiding principle rather than at most one factor among many. As for "Computing and biology strike me as only loosely related fields"; you may care to read Bioinformatics. It is an interdisciplinary field. WAS 4.250 15:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a Systemics hypothesis that lacks enough notability to have its own article and should redirect to Evolutionary theory of sex which has a biological context to help explain this Systemics hypothesis and which is notable enough that it might possibly qualify for not being deleted. I'm on the fence about that article. Its interesting enough to keep, but its creator makes wild claims about its applicability which might make it more trouble than its worth. I just don't know about it. WAS 4.250 15:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mathematical biology is a perfectly well established field, and analogs have been used for naming theories before. "conjugated" is not being used in the ordinary chemical sense, but that does not prove non-notability, & similar analogies have sometime been important theories. But we're not here to judge the science as peer-reviewers, but to judge how well it's known The journals published in include some of the better Russian journals, covered in Web of Science. The author's earlier unrelated works have up to 20 citations per article, but the ones discussed here no citations at all except from other works of this author. Though Russian journals are under-represented in WoS, still this is clearly a theory that nobody except the author has paid any attention to. DGG (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain the principle in simple example so there will be no misunderstanding that it’s a valid and fruitful concept far from “word salad”. Imagine a blind man. Without a cane or a dog he will periodically bump into objects, fall into cavities etc. Even if he does not move and sits quietly, a tiger can come and eat him. One day he can wake up and find out that forest is now a desert without food and water. Adaptive systems need a cane too. So, phenotype is a cane for genotype (this idea was explored by Dawkins), proteins – for DNA, sex chromosomes – for the autosomes, males - for females, left hemisphere – for the right one etc. Length of the cane is a variable dependent upon environment. More stable – short is enough, harsh – should be longer. Length of the cane in the case of sex is a reaction norm, for other cases it is dimorphism – sexual, lateral etc.

This is not the area of Mathematical biology. The way it is written – it’s a qualitative concept, not quantitative (which of course may follow). It’s not biology or theoretical biology (the principle covers social, technical, physiological, psychological and other types of adaptive systems). I would think cybernetics, systems theory or research is more appropriate.

"conjugated" – the Russian word is “сопряженный” which means – linked together like two horses in one carriage, interrelated.

“a theory that nobody except the author has paid any attention to” – not quite true. Simonov P.V. e.a. (1995) Журн. высшей нервной деятельности. (J. of High Nervous Activity), v. 45, 1, p. 13-17. writes: “Geodakian law is equally valid for phylo- and onthogenesis”. I’ll try to find some other examples.

On the other hand its true – theory does not have the attention it deserves. French proverb says: “If not you – (then) who? And if not now – when?” This is why I am trying to fix it. Please help me, because this project is huge and will need interdisciplinary involvement. New approaches to breast and prostate cancer treatment based on the theory (discovered in recent years) if proven valid can save thousands of lives in the US only.Sashag 17:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is precisely the problem: Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for promoting your father's work. Alas, Wikipedia cannot help you in this project: if you want your father's work to be recognized to the extent you think he deserves, then you should aim to have it recognized by researchers in his field, through the standard scholarly journals and textbooks. Until his theories have faced that kind of scrutiny from the scientific community, they will be considered as fringe work and won't have a place on Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that comment completely, note that despite my long experience of writing about biology, and the fact that I have a PhD and have multiple scientific papers to my name, I have never made a professional assessment of whether or not these ideas of your father's are true. That is not what we do on Wikipedia - material is included if it is verifiable and notable, we make no judgements about if something is "true" or not. All we do is report what notable, reliable sources say about a topic. If a hypothesis has been ignored in the scientific literature, then it cannot be included here. Tim Vickers 19:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel it needs to be deleted, do it. I have no more commentsSashag 03:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The accumulated evidence strongly indicates that this topic lacks the notability required for a WP article. It's possible, however, that the concept deserves to be mentioned in a broader article. Most likely that would be somewhere like Systems theory or Complex system or Complex adaptive system. --orlady 22:36, 12 August 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.