 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 January 12. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. No policy/guideline-based arguments made for keeping. Jayjg (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RBF Morph
[edit]- RBF Morph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable software, article created by software author WuhWuzDat 17:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unimportant and no attention outside the author and a limited set of users. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Keep RBF Morph was born during a research project for company involved in aerodynamic optimisation because at that time they weren't able to use available solutions (2007). Now it's the first tool available for CFD users that uses Radial Basis Functions for mesh morphing. Radial Basis Function theory is a very important topic well funded and established on the mathematical point of view (even if the information on wikipedia are poor); however practical use for industrial problems it is still quite limited; RBF Morph is innovative and it has been awarded for this reason: it brings the tecnology beyond the academic examples exposed in research papers! Considering the deletion proposal I can confirm that Radial Basis Functions and RBF Morph are relevant for a very small community of engineers and researchers. However even a small community should deserve respect; the numerical tools used during the design of components are important for their success and the benefit of having good products is relevant for everybody! MEB71 (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) — MEB71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Have you seen the proliferation of banners on this page? Looks like a vendetta to me. It makes no sense at all to call for deletion before people have had time to respond to some of the others. There are pages that hjave carried improvement banners for 5 years. With software for new technique like this it may be some time before a qualified user discovers the page and beats it into shape. Not reasonable to expect that to happen overnight. But that does not make it un-notable.--Brunnian (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; the maintenance templates (other than the AfD and Notability templates) are a seperate issue, and yes, the templates do not prove non-notability, just as a lack of maintenance templates on this article would not make its subject notable. WuhWuzDat 13:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - all I meant by the last sentence was that failure to re-write is evidence of a small user base, not evidence of un-notability, and that having a small user base did not disquality it either. I wasn't trying to conflate the number of banners and notability.--195.137.63.170 (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)--Brunnian (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; the maintenance templates (other than the AfD and Notability templates) are a seperate issue, and yes, the templates do not prove non-notability, just as a lack of maintenance templates on this article would not make its subject notable. WuhWuzDat 13:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. From the website: "RBF Morph has been awarded for the Most Advanced Approach using integrated and combined simulation methods at the European Automotive Simulation Conference (EASC)." I don't know how important this prize is, and whether it passes the WP:GNG. A complete lack of independent sources on Google scholar makes me lean towards delete, however. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 01:51, 1 January 2010 (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.