Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaosbrot

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaosbrot

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

Article name fails WP:N and is not cited by MIRS. Concerns about the article being OR and self-promotion have also been raised here. The non-notability of the article subject matter is, however, questionable. An old online forum discussion back in 2008, although fails to qualify as an independent reliable source, indicates that the subject matter has been touched upon before. It is possible that such a mathematical generalization may have been published before by reliable sources under a different name.

Possible measures:

Delete for lack of notability and verifiability.
Merge to Mandelbrot_set#Generalizations and remove "chaosbrot" as a keyword to avoid WP:PROMOTION.
Move if reliable sources mentioning it can be found. Move article to name as it appears in the source.
Keep if notability and verifiability can be established under the current name.-->

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomed Rasher (talk • contribs) 10 January 2010

Comment - I've hidden a section of the nomination as at first and second glance they look like actual votes, and I think everyone here knows how AfD works. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability, just original research - one of an infinite number of trivial generalisations of the Mandelbrot set.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as apparently non-notable. Paul August ☎ 18:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. There are no hits whatsoever on Google scholar, Google news archive, and Google books. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. There are no independent reliable sources to establish notability. Regarding "otherstuffexists", gravity set looks dubious to me for the same reasons. Geometry guy 10:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research, and no evidence of notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are some hits in various forums and blogs but nothing like a reliable secondary source. For something like this, appearance in a popular fractal generating program might be acceptable. I checked Fractint and Xaos, but I didn't see it there.--RDBury (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have my doubts about the image too. By my old-fashioned pen and paper calculations the p=-2 case should be infinite and the image generated is probably the result of a poorly chosen bailout value. Not that anyone cares but inaccuracy is often a side-effect of OR.--RDBury (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The p=-2 case does escape for a lot of values; take c = 10 + 0i. This, obviously, diverges to infinity, as well as a large subset of other values. The fact that it is cut off is a side effect of using 2 as the bailout radius as you discerned. General consensus is that "Chaosbrot" violates WP:N and should be deleted, but has anyone actually performed a good-faith search for academic publications addressing this variant under a different name? Doomed Rasher (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think whether it exists under a different name is irrelevant. If you create an article that OR, whether or not it's something new or something you discovered independently it's still OR.--RDBury (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mm, indeed; I was thinking that if it was discovered already, an article with reliable sourcing may be created at the new name as referred to in the publication, or this can be merged if WP article is already present. Seems to not be the case. Doomed Rasher (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a well written article, and generalizes a whole class of fractals. It includes the famous Mandelbrot Set and the Tricorn, while many other variations only have the Mandelbrot Set. Personally, I would love to see Wikipedia build a nice series of articles on different fractals. This should be kept. --Timeroot 16:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources brought; WP:OR/WP:SYNTH holds even if information is true. Avi (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2010 (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.