Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Image-based flow visualization Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Image-based_flow_visualization

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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image-based flow visualization

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded by author with addition of sources, but I'm not convinced that this can be expanded beyond a mere dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination seems to misunderstand our WP:DICDEF policy, which has nothing to do with the potential for expansion.
One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.
Warden (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think I'm misunderstanding it? I know that short and dicdef aren't synonymous. I'm saying that it's both. I fail to see any content here that is not a mere definition of the term, nor do I see any reason to believe that it will ever be anything more than a definition. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main paper has been cited 246 times [1] so clearly an important and notable technique. There is much scope for expansion of the article beyond a dicdef.--Salix (talk): 21:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While there is certainly enough to make a larger article, it might be preferable for now to combine Texture advection Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection, and Image-based flow visualization together in a single article or posibly a section in Flow visualization‎. They are all variations on a theme and one reasonably size article might server the reader better than three stubs.--Salix (talk): 19:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From sources found already, plus just a quick look at Google book search results, this is something people in this field talk about. Dream Focus 14:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's perfectly obvious that this can be expanded far beyond its present state, which is already far more than a dictionary definition. Here is proof of that fact. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is part of a series of ten disruptive nominations for deletion, only one of which seem to have even a hint of any merit. This is basically just edit-warring spanning a series of articles created by a common author. linas (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly expandable, verifiable, and a good entry to Wikipedia..--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close to prevent more time wasting. A simple google scholar search before nomination would have left all these people hours for editing and improving articles just like this. Eau (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and WP:TROUT to the nom. Bad-faith nomination, with dozens of reliable book and journal sources existing. -- 202.124.74.22 (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep per Paul. --Nouniquenames (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2012 (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.