Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana's fractal


 * 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. Consensus is that the fractal does not qualify for an English Wikipedia article. North America1000 00:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ana's fractal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fractal. A Google search only gives the unrelated fractal by Clifford Pickover. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I find this fractal to be one of the most beautiful fully mathematical fractals.
 * You really can not find it anywhere else on the internet, but it is only because I found it and have not put it anywhere else yet.
 * It is a fractal art with the precise instructions, how to recreate it.
 * On the other hand, you can check, that it is not something that goes with a different name. So it is not violating any moral or written laws, and it is helpful to people, who would like to recreate this fractal and use it to decorate anything, or to the students who might wonder, how exactly is this fractal created.
 * This fractal is included in the course "Mathematical Way of Thinking" in the top Georgian university "Free University of Tbilisi" (professor Amiran Ambroladze, PhD in mathematics, specialization: Fractals and Chaos). So this article might be helpful at least for them right now.
 * So, this article does not violate any rules, it can not confuse anybody or cause any harm, it is beautiful and it is helpful for at least some people. I do not see any reason it should be deleted :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guggger (talk • contribs) 06:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * P.s. All the information provided in this article can be checked directly, with just copy-pasting the given code to Wolfram Mathematica, running it and observing the output. Or by implementing the described algorithm directly in any programming language.
 * I understand that I might be subjective on this matter, but before deleting this article, please explain to me what harm can it possibly cause, or why is this not suitable for wikipedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guggger (talk • contribs) 06:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is Wikipedia's policy against original research. If it's research that hasn't been published in some refereed source, then for the purposes of that policy, it's considered original research. If this gets published in a journal and the paper can be cited in the Wikipedia article, then it will no longer be "original research", so there could be a Wikipedia article about it if it's considered notable. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * P.s. All the information provided in this article can be checked directly, with just copy-pasting the given code to Wolfram Mathematica, running it and observing the output. Or by implementing the described algorithm directly in any programming language.
 * I understand that I might be subjective on this matter, but before deleting this article, please explain to me what harm can it possibly cause, or why is this not suitable for wikipedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guggger (talk • contribs) 06:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is Wikipedia's policy against original research. If it's research that hasn't been published in some refereed source, then for the purposes of that policy, it's considered original research. If this gets published in a journal and the paper can be cited in the Wikipedia article, then it will no longer be "original research", so there could be a Wikipedia article about it if it's considered notable. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is Wikipedia's policy against original research. If it's research that hasn't been published in some refereed source, then for the purposes of that policy, it's considered original research. If this gets published in a journal and the paper can be cited in the Wikipedia article, then it will no longer be "original research", so there could be a Wikipedia article about it if it's considered notable. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as unsourced original research. In answer to the paragraph immediately above this one, see our policies, in particular on original research and conflict of interest over publishing your own work on Wikipedia.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 06:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Guggger's own words attest to its lack of notability: "You really can not find it anywhere else on the internet". Clarityfiend (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Michael Hardy and John Blackburne for your explanations :) Guggger (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Gurram Mikaberidze


 * Delete. The fractal is pretty. But it is obviously original research which is not permitted. This policy is stated again at What Wikipedia is not, "Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: 1 Primary (original) research." As noted above, if notability of the content could be demonstrated, and it was supported by reliable, verifiable source(s), most likely at least one peer-reviewed or refereed journal in this case, it could be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Donner60 (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing found in Google books nor Google scholar; fails WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.