Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texture advection

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 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Texture advection

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded by author with source (see talk page) but I'm not convinced that this is worthy. This just seems like an un-expandable dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination seems to misunderstand our WP:DICDEF policy, which has nothing to do with the potential for expansion.

“

One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.

”

Warden (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think I'm misunderstanding it? I know that short and dicdef aren't synonymous. I'm saying that it's both. I fail to see any content here that is not a mere definition of the term, nor do I see any reason to believe that it will ever be anything more than a definition. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if we look at the helpful scholar link[1] handily provided by the afd templates it is quickly revealed that Texture advection is a topic with a lot of academic interest with some highly cited papers. While there is certainly enough to make a larger article, it might be preferable for now to combine this Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection, and Image-based flow visualization, which are all variations on a theme, together in a single article or posibly a section in Flow visualization‎.--Salix (talk): 19:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – Easily passes WP:GNG. These articles are all from page one of the Google Scholar link above here. This topic is clearly well-beyond a dictionary definition. I've also added these sources to the article:

Laramee, Robert S.; et al. (2006). "Texture Advection on Stream Surfaces: A Novel Hybrid Visualization Applied to CFD Simulation Results" (PDF). Eurographics/ IEEE-VGTC Symposium on Visualization. The Eurographics Association. Retrieved September 2, 2012.
Jobard, Bruno; et al. (2000). "Hardware-accelerated texture advection for unsteady flow visualization". VIS '00 Proceedings of the conference on Visualization '00. IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 155–162. Retrieved September 2, 2012.
Bousseau, Adrien; et al. (2007). "Video watercolorization using bidirectional texture advection". SIGGRAPH '07 ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 papers, Article No. 104. ACM. Retrieved September 2, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been found proving its notable. Clicking Google book search at the top of the AFD shows even more results. Dream Focus 23:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's worthy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Total failure of WP:BEFORE, with hundreds of reliable sources right there on the GB and GS limks. -- 202.124.74.22 (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as logic dictates per above. --Nouniquenames (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:POINT nom by editor. Eau (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2012 (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.