Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worley noise

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} 17:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worley noise

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

Deprodded by author with addition of sources, but I'm not convinced that this can be expanded beyond a mere dicdef. Especially since the creator of the term doesn't have an article — this seems like putting the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the weakest case for deletion I've ever seen. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that a technique can't be notable unless its originator is presumably notable and also has a pre-existing article seems like a particularly misinformed reading of WP:OSE. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination seems to misunderstand our WP:DICDEF policy, which has nothing to do with the potential for expansion. "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." Warden (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think I'm misunderstanding it? I know that short and dicdef aren't synonymous. I'm saying that it's both. I fail to see any content here that is not a mere definition of the term, nor do I see any reason to believe that it will ever be anything more than a definition. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator appears confused on the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. This is a technical topic about a particular algorithm. A dicdef will say what it is, who invented it and what it's used for - none of which is terribly useful here. An encyclopedia can go further than this, still without falling foul of HOWTO, and can explain how it does it, the theoretical basis it's built on and what came before it, and on the implications of parameters as to how it's used and how the end results are thus varied. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Don't expect the house to build itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TPH as WP:DICDEF, poorly ref'd, only 4 GBook hits, GHits show it mainly as an alternate name for "Cell noise," It fits DicDef perfectly. GregJackP Boomer! 16:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The original (1996) paper has about 200 citations in GS though, which shows it to be an influential enough method. There's nothing in WP:N saying that it needs more than 4 GB hits (and I count 8 actually). Tijfo098 (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's obviously not an alternate name for cell noise. It's a particular algorithm, whereas cell noise is a natural phenomenon. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Haven't researched yet, but Hammer v. Dingley, already has me excited!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'll love WP:ANI#TenPoundHammer, AfD and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT. He's nominated a dozen of them, all with the same feeble nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if is is not, 3 of the 4 books have it wrong, plus many of the other hits. GregJackP Boomer! 03:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that there's one person who's not convinced it can be expanded beyond a dictionary definition is trumped be the fact that it can obviously be expanded beyond that. That would be obvious even if the recent expansion (after this nomination) hadn't proved it. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Don't expect the house to build itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) It's already grown beyond a dictionary definition.
- (2) Experience has shown that things like this can always be expanded far beyond a definition. One can write about the uses to which this algorithm is put and about its mathematical properties. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - TenPound Hammer, look at this page. All those smart people write all this about this algorithm, and we're supposed to be impressed by your inability to see how it could be done? Stop exerting so much effort to embarrass yourself. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 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) 06:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep per [1] etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Realistic-looking anything in computer graphics is a challenge that has been attacked for the last 40-50 years, and remains challenging to this day. linas (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see absolutely no reason to delete this. — foxj 21:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be many sources of expansion for this article, e.g., [2]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though it needs expanding. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources have been found. Dream Focus 23:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep clear-cut case. Notable. Sources cited. Informative. Everything we look for in a Wikipedia article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and WP:TROUT to the nom. Bad-faith nomination, with several reliable sources existing. -- 202.124.74.22 (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no current valid deletion rationale. --Nouniquenames (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:POINT nom by editor who appears ro disagree with having stubs on Wikipedia. This issue can be taken up at the appropriate place with the community. Eau (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources indicate this is a notable concept. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worley noise is one of the most used coherent noise algorithms. It is used in many 3d programs including blender and 3dsmax. Also, there are lots of resources for Worley noise on the internet if you know what to search. Other common names for Worley noise include Voronoi noise and cell noise. If it is simply a matter of expanding the article I would be willing to expand the article. I wrote the blog post at http://aftbit.com/cell-noise-2/Freethenation (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see a valid rationale for deleting this. Rlendog (talk) 15:03, 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.