Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tensor glyph

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. snow and/or speedy 2e, take your pick (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tensor glyph

(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?)} 19:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is "overly technical"? "Not expandable" is implausible. TenPoundHammer, I invite you to think back on all the thousands of applied mathematics seminars you've attended over the last few decades, and remember how many began with simple definitions like this one, and how much mileage the speaker got out of each of them. Seeing your comments on your AfD proposals has not contributed to my respect for you. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep "Overly technical, nothing but a dicdef." Does anyone else see that as rather a contradiction? Nor is WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT a valid reason for deletion.

As to any issues of expansion, clarification or sourcing, then I'd remind the nominator that "Don't expect the house to build itself.", the same patronising comment they've just seen fit to deliver to a couple of other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect this house to be built with? Prove it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, do you know what a tensor field is, because this isn't going far if you don't (and it wasn't even wl'ed until I just added it). If you do, then read the (linked) Kindlmann paper, which gives a fairly good explanation.

Tensor fields are Hard Sums. I don't understand them - even though I trained as a physicist - because my maths was never up to Fields Medal standard. So I'm just a poor dumb little code monkey. However I do also have much the same problem in data visualisation: how to represent a field (maybe simplified as a discrete field) of multi-attribute tuple values for each point in the field. This technique, that of mapping attribute dimensions onto the parameters of a varying glyph shape, is equally applicable to both clever tensor fields and me throwing my monkey-poop at your computer screens. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki: As presented, this is a dicdef. No sources discussing the subject in "significant detail" are proffered, and it's been multiple-tagged for over a year without any attempt to improve or source it. That being said, Andy's keep seems far more grounded in antagonism towards TPH than out of any valid policy or guideline which would support retention ... of which he proffers none. (For my part, no, there's no contradiction in "overly technical" / "dicdef". Is there a word count beyond which a dicdef isn't a dicdef any more?) Ravenswing 20:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have added to this article. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK 2e, WP:BEFORE and WP:CIR. If anyone should doubt the notability of the topic, please see Visualization and Processing of Tensor Fields. Warden (talk) 20:38, 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]

Keep. I have added both content and specific references, including a line that better explains what the article is about. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two pages in the book found by Warden are enough to show this is a notable topic, particularly because one can trivially find more of the same [1] [2] [3]. What this article needs is some illustrations, not deletion. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Warden. Also, if "overly technical" was a problem, we'd throw out the "English" Wikipedia and just keep the "Simple English" one. -- 202.124.72.177 (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per obvious reasons/Warden. Ryan Vesey 12:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Standard topic in scientific visualization. linas (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking Google book search at the top of the AFD, shows results that prove its a real thing, and all notable scientific things should be in the encyclopedia. The Wikipedia isn't just a pop culture junkyard, it actually contains actually educational content in places in case someone wants to learn about things other than famous people and entertainment media. Dream Focus 23:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK#2 Disparaging nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep sources cited, looks good.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Sufficient sourcing cited. Ill-considered nomination. Carrite (talk) 04:49, 3 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.