Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova fractal (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 redirect to Newton fractal. Can be merged from the history as may be appropriate.  Sandstein  08:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Nova fractal
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fractal. There are a couple dozen sources on this in Google scholar and Google books, but as far as I can tell all of these sources were published subsequently to the 2008 addition of this material to Wikipedia, all give little or no detail (maybe a figure but not even the formula), and all are plagiarized from the 2008 version of the Wikipedia article Fractal, in particular copying the sentence "Examples of this type are the Mandelbrot set, Julia set, the Burning Ship fractal, the Nova fractal and the Lyapunov fractal." from that version. I can find no reliable in-depth sources that are independent of Wikipedia, so I believe the topic fails WP:GNG. The previous AfD, in 2008, did not seriously address the lack of sources, instead defaulting to a keep based on weak arguments such as claims that all mathematical formulae are inherently notable (which I don't believe). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete/Redirect: I think I've found one example of its being implemented in a fractal software package (here), but I certainly haven't seen anything to suggest that it's a part of "most" fractal art software, as the article currently claims. There are other mentions, but no definitive, specific coverage from a major, credible source that I could spot. I'd feel comfortable keeping it if we could find even just one clear definition of the term in a reliable source, but without that I'm leaning toward redirecting it until something more solid emerges. And, given the current state of the article, it's not as though the encyclopedia would be losing much. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * merge to Newton fractal. Not independently notable, not enough content for a standalone article. The previous AfD does seem to be more of a merge/delete than a keep, and probably should have been closed no consensus, but even if it were a solid keep seven years is more than enough time for consensus to change.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge - no sources, not enough evidence of notability to justify its own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2015 (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.