Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stencil jumping

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, based on content of discussion. AKRadecki 17:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stencil jumping

Stencil jumping (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article is on a mathematical algorithm with applications (asserted) in computational fluid dynamics. This looks a lot like either original research or it is promotion for an algorithm that is not notable. Google search doesn't turn up anything on the topic. This was a disputed prod. Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 17:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Questionable. Looks like uncited OR and may even be a form of advertising for the software company. We can keep the article only if credible references can be found. — Loadmaster 17:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't notice this before, but it looks like the "software company" in question is, in fact, NASA. - makomk 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Even without refs, if it's a known (proven) algorithm, I have no problem for it to be a WP article. Provided that it is not presented like OR, of course. — Loadmaster 22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not quite just advertising, I think. There seem to be 8 or so journal articles that reference it. Could be an interesting one. - makomk 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ok I couldn't find those...I'm a little off today. Well, I'm willing to go keep if the article gets cleaned up (needs tone work). -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 17:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that could be fun. It's a fairly technical area that I know nothing about, and the rest of Wikipedia is less than informative on the matter. [1] page 128 has a brief description of it, but I'm not sure how closely it matches the more non-technical description here. (By the way, it's kind of weird - a new user added the same article here and at CFD Online at about the same time.) - makomk 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. No one can blame you for nominating an article whose only source was another Wiki ;-) Someguy1221 06:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
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.