Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscillating fractals Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oscillating_fractals

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 Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oscillating fractals

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

The reference to Mandelbrot's book (which is attached to the term "oscillating fractal") does not contain any discussion of so-called "oscillating fractals". Indeed, I am unable to find any evidence that this term is used in the literature, except possibly in an ancillary way as the juxtaposition of the English words "oscillating" and "fractal". The subject of the article thus seems to be original research. There is, moreover, no useful information contained in the article: it is just a gallery of images. Well, WP:NOTGALLERY. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have to agree with the Nom on all counts. I couldn't find anything about this topic, either. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, indeed apparently non-existent: nothing in ZMATH. Deltahedron (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons.TheRingess (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non delete. Obviously It is original research. I can explain better the theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josep m batlle2 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Original research" is considered grounds for deletion. See WP:OR. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like all the pretty pictures and appreciate the effort taken to create the article, but agree that the term "Oscillating fractal" does not seem to be notable by Wikipedia standards. I found one reference to oscillating fractals in "Simulating physics with cellular automata", Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, Volume 10, Issues 1–2, January 1984, Pages 96–116, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167278984902537#, but it doesn't seem to be used in the same sense as used here. For the article to be kept, it needs multiple reliable sources to show notability. Also, original research is not allowed on Wikipedia; see WP:NOR for details. Sorry. Mark viking (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the creator admitting its OR. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No question about it being OR. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I Agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.4.25.15 (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Poster has admitted OR.PianoDan (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is "iteration of two or more different functions alternatively" any different from iteration of one function, which is the composite? And is there any function that cannot be realized as a composite? If the answer to both questions is "no", then there's nothing here that isn't already in the concept of a fractal arising from such iteration of a function. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
in order to clarify this issue, please see the pseudo-code in visual basic in the page, as example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josep m batlle2 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 6 December 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.