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.--Kubigula (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diagonal intercept clipping[edit]

This article should be deleted as it is of no value in the context of line/segment clipping. The authors are trying to sell their proposed idea and their new technical paper, The article's source makes nonsensical claims of optimal efficiency over other well-known and mature algorithms, the authors obviously don't understand the concepts behind the complexity issues of line clipping and make dubious claims when comparing their method to other methods of line clipping.

This is essentially a viral marketing attempt of their paper - if their paper was of any value they wouldn't need to try so hard to sell it.

Also another blantant attempt of the source papers authors trying to sell their method can be found here:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.graphics.algorithms/browse_thread/thread/9323dee35d11086d

Note: this is a procedural nom. IP user attempted to start the AfD and didn't finish the process. I've copied their reasoning from the article's talk page, but (as of yet) I have no opinon on the deletion.Fabrictramp (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The authors are trying to sell their proposed idea" - We are not selling our idea. We want the entire world to know about this. Is there a better way of doing this than wikipedia? Isn't this the spirit of wikipedia? You didn't have to pay to access the paper . Its for everyone. Our desire to let everyone interested in line clipping know about this method, does not warrant a deletion.

"The article's source makes nonsensical claims of optimal efficiency over other well-known and mature algorithms" - This algorithm has been implemented and tested. Agreed, it will be difficult to get the exact same numbers when you execute it on different computers, but the difference between the cohen-sutherland and this algorithm should remain approximately the same.

"the authors obviously don't understand the concepts behind the complexity issues of line clipping" - Teach us.

"make dubious claims when comparing their method to other methods of line clipping" - As I said earlier, these claims are not dubious.

Again, as far as the google groups link is concerned, I wanted to clarify the person's doubts about this method, and HELP him for FREE. THIS IS NOT FOR SALE (which is why it is on wikipedia in the first place). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreyasjoshis (talk • contribs) 04:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quoting: "Isn't this the spirit of wikipedia?" In a word, no. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- it contains things that have already demonstrated notability, not to generate notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because "We want the entire world to know about this" does not mean that it lacks notability. Wikipedia makes this information more accessible, concise and (in the near future) better explained than the paper. This page, by existing, does not make the idea of diagonal clipping more believable, credible, or notable. The paper in itself is far more trust-worthy. --Weedrat (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misunderstanding our notability guidelines. They are available here. They clearly state that a topic has to receive significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject to be notable. In order to be notable, it would have to be the subject of scholarly discourse by more than two undergraduates publishing a paper by what is widely regarded as a last resort publisher in the community, and/or be used by software companies. This concept doesn't even meet our verifiability guidelines, which are even less stringent. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for original research WP:NOR plus there is conflict of interest WP:COI. Although it does appear there is a personal vendetta occurring, the authors state above they are using Wikipedia to let the entire world about their research, that is enough to warrant a delete. MortimerCat (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not original research in itself. Original research was published a long time before this article was up. It cites original research for credibility. Also, do look at the google groups link, and well, it does look like personal vendetta (I have no idea what this guy has against the article).(Also read the comment above)--Weedrat (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Digging around I see that the article first appeared, but speedily deleted, days after the paper was originally published. Although some have claimed that the article is wrong, that is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia has to include independent verifiable sources. If you can show sources that software companies are showing interest in the technique then it becomes notable. At the moment, it is your own research. MortimerCat (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Five Years 11:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from the paper being just plain wrong about more than a few things (which it is; it isn't necessarily a peraonsal vendetta thing on the part of the ipuser nom), it doesn't meet notability guidelines at all. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google scholar turns up one hit that appears to be related; one of the authors is the username of the article creator: [1] JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice to recreation if the algorithm does achieve some notability. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.