Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection

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} 17:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection

(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) 06:07, 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. That is cited elsewhere as you can readily see by checking the search links to books and scholarly papers 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) 23:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close – Per WP:NRVE and an apparent lack of considering section D of WP:BEFORE. These sources took only moments to locate:

Also, how could no sources be found (as stated in the nomination) when one already existed in the article prior to the nomination? How would removal of this easily-expandable article about a notable concept and topic benefit the encyclopedia? Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe the nominator's point is that this is a brief description of a highly technical subject matter, questioning its relevance and worthiness to a general, everyman encyclopedia. I think we're well within the scope of WP:NOT #7 here, "scientific journals and research papers", along with WP:NOT#JARGON. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under this theory, we might as well delete all Wikipedia articles dealing with the mathematical advances of the last 100 years or so. --JBL (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding we have a lot of articles based on the work of Lagarangian. I started gathering them up in a catalog for him Category:Joseph Louis Lagrange, and then found in one article there is a category already. Category:Lagrangian mechanics Someone who understand this, or just has access to a college level textbook about this sort of thing, should comment on what's notable and whats not. Dream Focus 15:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per Northamerica100. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:15, 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) 17:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge. Plently of cites, hint click scholar link above. 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): 19:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy created a lot of notable math/science things. Many scholars do cite this. Dream Focus 23:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about Lagrange or anything he came up with. Did you even do the most basic search about the article before voting? Lagrange was dead long before scientific visualization came around. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If something he created was notable enough to be used centuries later in a new industry, that seems rather notable to me. Dream Focus 21:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is not uncommon in the realm of "science/mathematics" for a law/rule/postulate to bear the name of someone who died centuries before it was proven or otherwise generally accepted. The Pareto Principle comes to mind.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article; it's called Lagrangian-Euler advection, because at a stage it makes use of Lagrangian coordinates. I think the article should be kept; because of the significant coverage in reliable academic sources, but bad arguments aren't helping anyone. If I call my theory "Einstein-Planck-Bohr-Pauli Theory", it doesn't mean it's notable in any way; it has absolutely no bearing. "This guy", is called Bruno Jobard, not Langrange. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple mistake. One of the guys was born in 1736 and the other in 1707. If they didn't work together on this, but someone else came up with it later on, then my mistake. It still gets coverage, as others have found and linked to already. Click the Google book search link at the top of the AFD, and you can see other sources, it appears to be used by a lot of people and is thus notable. Dream Focus 16:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK#2 Disparaging nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Overly technical" is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to edit and improve.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:11, 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) 07:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, POINT nom, editor did not check for sources, simply afd'ed short articles on topics outside his area. Is it a conspiracy to keep Wikipedia away from technical subjects? Eau (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Significant coverage in reliable academic sources. If someone wants to see some just ask and I'll paste examples of significant coverage (see google books and google scholar). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. There are dozens of reliable sources entirely about this algorithm. Tarc made a valid point, but Wolfie and others have expanded the article, making it easier for non elite readers to see what Lagrangian–Eulerian advection is all about. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:03, 6 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.