Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streamlet (Scientific Visualization)


 * 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. Merger can be discussed through normal channels if desired. The Bushranger One ping only 17:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Streamlet (Scientific Visualization)

 * – ( 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?) 19:03, 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge into streamline as a related concept with a more common name. For an example of coverage, see the Visualization Handbook. Warden (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep WP:NPASR SK Disparaging nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep could be merged I suppose, but it seems that it can be expandable. But even if it isn't, there's nothing wrong with stubs.  And another candidate for WP:SOURGRAPES...--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Dozens of reliable book and journal sources exist. For the rest of this nomination spree, the sources were right there on the GB and GS links. Here the article name makes the search a tiny bit trickier, but there's plenty on GS here. -- 202.124.74.22 (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep nomination does not appear to be about the article itself as about the annoying deprodding editor. Eau (talk) 18:40, 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.