Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-integration


 * 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   delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

T-integration

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable. As explained in Talk:T-integration, the subject of this article appears never to have been described or cited in any reputable source except for sources written by the algorithm's author, J. M. Smith. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not know if T-integration is "notable" or not. I created the Wikipedia article many years ago, when I was part of a project to have a Wikipedia article for every topic on Mathworld. Mathworld has an article on T-integration here: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/T-Integration.html .  My inclination is that more information is better than less, and I have not seen any indication that T-integration is incorrect or useless, only that it is not famous. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Mathworld article was co-written by the originator of the T-integration technique, J. M. Smith, so it is hardly independent evidence of notability. (Nor does the Mathworld editor, Weisstein, have any particular expertise in numerical integration.) Whether it is correct or not seems irrelevant to this discussion; Wikipedia should not have an article on every academic paper in existence, only subjects that are notable enough to have been covered in reputable secondary sources. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (Regarding the claimed utility of the technique, the fact that apparently no expert in numerical integration uses "T-integration" should give you pause. The nice thing about Wikipedia's policies, however, is that we don't have to argue among ourselves regarding whether a technique is useful compared to competing numerical methods; it's enough to judge whether the technique has...or hasn't...been judged notable by reliable published sources.  And a technique that is never cited or mentioned by anyone other than one person has clearly not been judged notable.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: "Correct" or "useful" are not, of course, valid criteria to retain an article. That this subject fails of notability is another matter altogether.   Ravenswing  10:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: The Math project did, at one time, have a listing of articles from MathWorld to be added to Wikipedia. I believe the current consensus is that an entry in MathWorld does not imply notability in the WP sense because MW often uses neologisms and has a tendency to have separate, short articles where WP guidelines would have a single, longer article. Notability issues aside, the article seems to be copied from the PDF given at the External links section, and would have to be rewritten anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDBury (talk • contribs) 19 February 2011
 * 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.