Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curve shortening flow Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Curve_shortening_flow

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 keep. I'm withdrawing my nomination of this article in light of Mark viking's advice. (non-admin closure) --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curve shortening flow (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)

I think this should be a redirect to mean curvature flow. The curve shortening flow is just the special case of the MCF where the manifold is one-dimensional, and I am not aware of a lot of research dealing specifically with this case - usually it is used as an introductory example for the MCF. The statement that it will always develop a singularity is also wrong - this holds only in the compact case. Sammy1339 (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can I just boldly do that and withdraw this AfD, or is it inappropriate to turn someone else's article into a redirect? --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When deciding whether to list at AfD, it is best to follow WP:BEFORE to check notability of the topic. In this case, the topic gets 1,710 hits in Google books and 937 hits in GScholar. Here is a book chapter on curve shortening flow in image processing, a chapter on curve shortening flow in robotic path planning, and an entire book on the curve shortening problem. It seems like a notable topic. Notability in itself doesn't necessarily prevent a merger into a parent article until a proper article can be written. But deletion, as in no article should be written on this topic, is the wrong way to proceed. --Mark viking (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 October 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.