Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master stability of the synchronized state

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Master stability of the synchronized state

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

Notability of subject not established. McDoob AU93 19:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The concept is clearly notable: see for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]; [6], [7]. A better title for the article would probably be Master stability function or Master stability function framework. Deltahedron (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This one's obvious. In its _present_ state, the article does not establish notability, but since that can obviously be done, the remedy is to cite a few sources. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the WP:BLOWITUP is tempting. The present state of the article fails {{db-context}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed, no problem with Keep. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I edited the article so that it is clearer what it is about. I added two references, both of which have 1000+ citations according to Google Scholar, to establish notability. I agree with renaming as Deltahedron suggested. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jitse's fine edit has both established context and explained the topic much better than before. His added citations and Deltahedron's RS finds establish notability through multiple RS; in particular the Physics Reports paper is just the sort of secondary source we look for. Demonstration of notability and a now-reasonable stub suggest keeping the article. After keeping, a rename to Master stability function would an improvement. --Mark viking (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2014 (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.