Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asymptotic Decider


 * 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 17:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Asymptotic Decider

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

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?) 19:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, lots of GScholar refs. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, even this brief, strikes me as too wordy for a dicdef. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Per WP:SK 2e "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". This is because the nomination says that no sources were found when the article already contains a source. That paper by Nielson and Hamann is cited in numerous books as you can readily see by checking the link above. The nominator seems to have made this nomination as part of a spree in which the facts of each case are not being checked. Warden (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Per WP:NRVE and an apparent lack of a source search per section D of WP:BEFORE. The nomination states that no sources were found. However, one reliable source already existed in the article prior to the nomination ! Source examples include: The asymptotic decider: resolving the ambiguity in marching cubes, Application of marching cubes algorithm in visualization of mineral deposits. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps when he said "no sources", he meant no significant coverage by reliable sources. For example, a passing mention of something can be referenced, but that doesn't make it the significant coverage that is required. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I believe the nominator's point is that this is a brief description of a highly technical subject matter, questioning its relevance and worthiness to a general, everyman encyclopedia. I think we're well within the scope of WP:NOT #7 here, "scientific journals and research papers", along with WP:NOT#JARGON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs)
 * Delete unless sources testifying that this algorithm is an important one are provided. A source that merely describes the algorithm is insufficient for notability. --regentspark (comment) 12:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Click Google books and you'll find ample results proving this is a real thing, and it is important for this field. Encyclopedia of microcomputers: Volume 26 - Page 368, for example.  No need copying and pasting things here, just click the link at the top of the AFD, and tell me if anyone sincerely doubts this is notable.  The nominator has been asked before to stop nomination sprees.  Deletion rational was copy and pasted to 11 related articles.    D r e a m Focus  14:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.


 * Procedural Keep per Northamerica100. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is part of a series of disruptive nominations for deletion. None of the others in this series, that I've looked at so far, have any merit, and certainly, this one does not either. It is a waste of everyone's time to have to look at these one by one, and I resent the utter disrespect the nominator shows for everyone involved.  We all have better things to do in life than to do this. linas (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK Disparaging nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep "I don't understand it" is not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and WP:TROUT to the nom. Bad-faith nomination, with dozens of reliable book and journal sources existing. -- 202.124.74.22 (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep "Does not seem expandable"? I have expanded it a bit (just by reading the reference originally provided, not adding any special knowledge of my own) and there are lots of other citations in Seng et al. as well as via other comments above, to look through for more information such as examples of use. "No sources found"? Pardon? There was a source in the version tagged for deletion. "Deprodded by an editor who..."? Personal attack. --Mirokado (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep nominator did not check for sources in half dozen other nominarions, so I am guessing he just decides there are no spurces if the term is unfamiliar to him, and bulk of nom is disparaging remark about other editor, sort of indicating what the nomination is really about. Eau (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's hard to find a discussion of isosurfaces today which doesn't contain a description of this algorithm, e.g. . The article can definitely be expanded to at least contain a description of the actual algorithm. As for the assertion by some editors above that Wikipedia shouldn't contain algorithms because they're of no use to the "everyman", well... if we go this way, Wikipedia should perhaps state indubitably that God exists because that's what the American everyman believes. "Keep'em in the dark" should be the new motto of Wikipedia... Not. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2012 (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.