mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vortex Core Line Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vortex_Core_Line

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 17:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex Core Line

[edit]
Vortex Core Line (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)

Overly technical, nothing but a dicdef. Does not seem expandable. No sources found. Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 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) 06:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Per WP:SK 2e "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". This is because the nomination says that no sources were found when the article already contains a source. More sources can be readily found as you can see by following the search links above. The nominator seems to have made this nomination as part of a spree in which the facts of each case are not being checked. Warden (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*delete only sources i could find are WP mirrors. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you look at the source {em|mentioned in the article}}? It is a source, and is not a mirror. --Nouniquenames (talk)
  • You're probably just as competent as TPH. Did you even click the "books" links in the template above? I'm not convinced that it's actually notable, but it's surely mentioned in visualization books [1] [2]. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Don't claim there are no sources to be found when results are just a click away. Those 151 book results don't look like they are all Wikipedia mirrors to me. Also, with an article this short, what would they be mirroring? Dream Focus 23:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep per Warden. AfD is factually inaccurate in stating that no sources could be found when there is a source in the article. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This definition seems to be of interest in the rather esoteric field of topology-based flow visualization algorithms. As I understand it from the helicopter after glancing at a few pages in ISBN 978-3-540-70822-3 (p. 8-9), there are several features by which a vortex core may be identified, and the vortex core line is one of them, although other feature of interest exist as well. There are also several algorithms proposed for vertex core line identification. It would make more sense to have a general article on the general topic of topology-based flow visualization. Perhaps a merge/redirect to Computational fluid dynamics#Vortex method would make most sense for now? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we are looking to a merge then Flow visualization‎ is a better target. The vortex method is something quite different to what is studied here.--Salix (talk): 17:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that seems to be the case. I was hoping something more proximate exists. Flow visualization covers no computational methods at this time, only experimental ones! It just says that visualizing CFD solutions may be a good idea. Duh... Tijfo098 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if you look in the right places you find there are lots of papers on the subject. Google scholar search. With [3] 91 cites, [4] 42 cites, [5] 14 cites, [6] 52 cites, [7] 32 cites, [8] 53 cites.--Salix (talk): 17:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, for fluid dynamics noobs like me the article would be more convincing if it (1) said why this feature is interesting, (2) at least enumerated some of the better-known algorithms for its detection. But with ~200 papers at least mentioning the notion (usually in conjunction with "extraction"), I grant that it's probably a keep & expand. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is part of a series of disruptive nominations for deletion, none of which seem to have any merit. linas (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources have been found proving this is a notable thing. Dream Focus 23:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep WP:NPASR  WP:SK#2 Disparaging nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with stubs.--Paul McDonald (t alk) 03:19, 3 September 2012 (
  • 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) 07:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other things being equal, if it looked like a worthwhile candidate for expansion short of some interested editor's attentions, if the PDF had been properly formatted, etc. I would have said keep or merge. As is I say delete or merge. Don't see how anybody could say it wasn't read before making a judgment and I'm dubious of the stated mathematics as well, in particular the linear algebraic assertion. Lycurgus (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment while we want the math behind any such technical article to be accurate, such a bold assertion without evidence makes me think "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" -- if it's wrong, show us the proof.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought about doing so before comment above but amending/extending per user above. All that's given on the page ATM is a definition, not a theorem or other statement that could be proven or disproven. So dubious of the applicability to the various fluid dynamic problems, but just that not asserting anything except that it's unworthy to be an article in its own right as currently composed and supported. Also just looked at the PDF in chrome. I'm not a deletionist except as the quality issue is concerned, even a stub can have issues, and just don't see all the impetus for keep, so expressing my opinion. Lycurgus (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reversed. The stuff that was there is no longer, what's there now looks reasonable. No idea what Paul McDonald was on about, diff speaks for itself. Lycurgus (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, appears to be disgruntled retaliatory POINT nom, note nom says no soures, so did not check for sources, and most of nom taken up by personal remark about other editor. Waste of time noms should be speedy kept as disruptive to editing. Eau (talk) 14:49, 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.