Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos computing


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 18:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Chaos computing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not really an article and has been in this state for five years. Parts are advertisements ("the new concept of ChaoGate presents its novel and brilliant property"). Momotaro (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete It's more of an essay than a Wikipedia article, and I am missing proper references. CeesBakker (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, I went looking into the article for a way to save it (as I am well versed in the subject). It is so poorly written, it would be less daunting to replace it with a wikified stub length article than clean it up. We aren't a clearinghouse for essay writers. The Illusive Man(Contact) 19:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There is an encyclopedic topic here as indicated by the number of references. I've done a big edit to the article to make it less essay like and fix some of the problems mentioned above. BTW The originator of the article may well be William Ditto who is a Dean University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa and does have considerable academic credentials. --Salix (talk): 11:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I have a background in classical and quantum chaos and note that idea of using chaotic dynamic systems for computation has been around for quite a while. In addition to the work of Leon Chua and others noted in the references in the article, physicists such as Jim Crutchfield and Doyne Farmer have studied "Computing at the edge of chaos". In my opinion, the topic is well above the threshold for notability. I did not see the previous version, but Salix' rewrite has removed the marketing hype and added a bit of background. As it stands the article us useful and is a good base for improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark viking (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep now, after the good work of a benevolent white willow. --Momotaro (talk) 12:08, 17 October 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.