Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravity set

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) 00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity set

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

This article describes the mathematics and software for producing certain visual effects, which are described as fractals by the creator of this page, which is also the author of the software. There are a couple of problems here:

The mathematics are not discussed in any independently published venue, which makes that part WP:OR. They appear to be a sort of simulation of an N-body problem, but then I'm engaging in my own original research...
As software, I wasn't able to find sources discussing it either.

In its defense, these visual effects generated by this math are included in one third party (commercial) program that we don't have an article about: Visions Of Chaos gallery. This looks pretty cool, but I'm not convinced we should invoke WP:IAR based on that factor alone. Pcap ping 19:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Neutral. After reviewing David Eppstein's argument, I'm less convinced the (self-)publications quite make it. Apparently a published mathematical concepts (that happens to have been implemented in some software). Like math in general, approaches inherent notability (as long as it meets publication and 3rd party discussion requirements, as this one does). The nom seems to be a case of the free-roamong anti-software bias that has become prevalent on AfD, but particularly misguided here since it isn't even a software-concept per se. LotLE×talk 20:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm willing to accept articles on very obscure mathematical subjects but they need to have some reliably published literature from more than one author or group of authors. I found nothing on this in Google scholar and nothing in Google books, which together should cover a large fraction of the scholarly mathematics research literature and the published popular mathematics literature. This article has been here for 6 1/2 years and in that time has managed only to find two self-published web pages as sources. This satisfies (barely) the "more than one author" part but not the reliably published part. It is also troubling that the softology link points back to the article here for more (any) information; we should not be doing such circular referencing. And both links just contain galleries of images with no description of the mathematics behind them, so effectively the entire article here is unsourced. Therefore, it is original research and should not be covered here. But I'd be willing to change my mind if the week-long AfD period can be more effective than the past years in turning up real references. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be established by third party coverage in reliable secondary sources. At present it isn't, and attempts to find such coverage have so far failed. Geometry guy 21:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per David Eppstein and Geometry guy. No reliable sources; no evidence of notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; lacks independent third-party reliable sources to establish notability. Fred Mitchell (mathematics) also seems to have similar problems. -- The Anome (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, or allow for incubation. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. Ray^Talk 04:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, lack of third party reliable resources and notability. --FaceMash (talk) 17:39, 19 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.