Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos computing (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Chaos computing
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not Notable - all sources are primary sources and research output, i have been unable to find good secondary sources that establish notability. It's been 10 years since the last deletion discussion, and the field doesn't seem to have developed much since then. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. all seem to establish notability. 0x Deadbeef  →∞ (talk to me) 08:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources 2 3 and 4 that you have linked are all by the same group of authors, so coverage of this topic isn't widespread. And there has been little reliable secondary coverage of this topic either - only an MIT tech review article. Wikipedia is not a journal paper aggregator. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So what? You seem to misunderstand the word "secondary" here. These papers all provide a general overview of the topic instead of reporting raw data, so it is secondary. I don't care if it is same group of authors, I only care if those are by the same author. And no they are not, so therefore we have multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 06:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * One sourcing requirement for WP:GNG is that sources used to establish notability are independent of each other. If the term is primarily being used within a single research group and hasn't found broader widespread adoption within EECS academia, I think that's not sufficient to establish notability. Please note that I have not started looking into sourcing for this specific topic, (and now that I have, it's clear that this is not the case here; plenty of different researchers and groups are working with this subject) so this isn't meant as a comment on whether or not that's what is happening here, just a general statement on applying GNG. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 18:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are talking about Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Then I would agree. But I would argue that the sources I linked were already enough. They need to be independent of the subject, but that is more about preventing coverage used in return of payments contributing towards GNG. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 10:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Notability does not expire, if the sources met GNG ten years ago then they still do today (WP:NTEMP). 193.37.240.45 (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think tis should have passed GNG back then - see my reply to the other comment. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Not very familiar with this topic, but I don't see how we can write a neutral encyclopedic article about this, given the limited nature of the sources that are only by a small handful of authors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is obviously a niche topic, but those papers are published in respected peer-reviewed academic journals. No question notability is established. Thparkth (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Evidently a notable field of research within electrical engineering. In addition to the sources provided by 0xdeadbeef, I found a number of conference proceedings and reviews which discuss it. Chaos in the Real World:Recent Applications to Communications, Computing, Distributed Sensing, Robotic Motion, Bio-Impedance Modelling and Encryption Systems from Symmetry (journal) (, access available through WP:TWL) is a synthesis of chaos theory applications across multiple fields which covers chaos computing in section 7. It's been referenced in work occurring outside of EECS too, like in the dynamical systems paper Introduction: Theory of Hybrid Dynamical Systems and Its Applications to Biological and Medical Systems . Research into the topic spans multiple research groups, institutions, and researchers, as well as being surprisingly broad in applications; there's a group working on applications in logic locking out of UC Davis, a group working on some subset of map coloring problems out of UH Mānoa , a group working on side channel attack mitigation with a paper in IEEE conference proceedings , and so on. It's mentioned in some textbooks as well , though the coverage here seems less significant. Personally I feel pretty comfortable saying it's a notable field of research. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 18:48, 5 November 2022 (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.