Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Functional decomposition

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. There is a general consensus that there should be some article at this title. What that article should contain (whether a disambiguation page or something else) is a discussion for the article's talk page, not AfD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Functional decomposition[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article was deprodded without explanation, so as someone who endorsed deletion I'm copying the prod here and pinging the original nominator.

Article that begins with "In mathematics" and does does not contain any mathematics except trivia. Most of the content consists of philosophical considerations that do not seem to be supported by the numerous philosophical sources. In summary, pure original research. D.Lazard (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC) (proposed by @D.Lazard:)

Seconding, this is amateur pseudophilosophy which appears to be trying to derive an original theory of metaphysics. - car chasm (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Additionally I will add that in my experience the term "functional decomposition" seems to be used very broadly in technical contexts, to the extent that its appearance in reliable sources is no indication that an article can be written on it. WP:NOTDICT,WP:SYNTH,WP:OR. - car chasm (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carchasm: I included an explanation of my deprod as an edit summary: objection raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#PROD_of_Functional_decomposition. Sorry you missed that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice this, but since no specific reasons were given in opposition to deletion either by you or the IP, I took it to be procedural. - car chasm (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's objection was, "I think its a valid (software and systems) engineering topic." ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, the article mentions uses in engineering and computer science, but this seems not to be supported by the sources. Instead, this appears as a tentative to interpret some basic tools of these fields in terms of the WP:OR philosophy of the author. D.Lazard (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Convert to disambiguation~~. This is a cross-disciplinary concept with theories present in the individual disciplines (take Polynomial decomposition for example), but which do not overarch across all disciplines, making this page WP:DICT. To WP:PRESERVE the links to this page, I suggest turning it into a disambiguation page. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and TNT per User:Hobit's source suggestions. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to DAB From a WP:BEFORE-style search, the concept is used in multiple fields, with secondary sources available in mechanical engineering [1], [2], software engineering [3], [4], and the aforementioned mathematical context. I haven't found any sources discussing the topic in a cross-disciplinary context, so this article trying to connect all of them is likely OR and has some synthesis. But being a notable topic in multiple fields, our readers are better served by a DAB page redirecting them to the FD context they are interested in, rather than outright deletion. If there are ever RS discussing this across disciplines, perhaps a summary-style broad-concept article would be appropriate. But for now, to get rid of the OR and synth, converting to a DAB is a reasonable approach. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to DAB per the above. A wikipedia search for functional decomposition yields several hits in pages about engineering, such as Functional decomposition (computer science), Structure chart, and Structured analysis for software engineering, Function_model#Functional_decomposition and Functional flow block diagram for systems engineering, Fourier_optics#Fourier_analysis_and_functional_decomposition for fourier optics. It is just the cross-disciplinary concept that is WP:OR or WP:PATENT. In order to satisfy WP:PRESERVE, each subsection of Functional_decomposition#Applications should be integrated into the most appropriate engineering article, leaving Functional decomposition as a DAB skeleton. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Plenty of sources in the context of Engineering ([5], [6]), Math ([7]), Computer Science [8]. I personally use this term in both CS and Engineering courses on a regular basis. The article is actually pretty solid. It could use on-line sources, but that's not a reason for deletion and we aren't close to WP:TNT IMO. One could argue WP:DICDEF as a deletion reason, but the concept has so many applications, I think an article like this makes more sense than anything else. Hobit (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Also some sources do discuss the generic concept before jumping into the specifics of whatever the author is wanting to talk about. [9] for example. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A first relist to allow new RS to be discussed. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aszx5000 (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or maybe Convert to DAB. My first reaction was a knee-jerk keep, for the reasons given in "strong keep" above. However, the "basic mathematical definition" is 100% b.s. original research, as is half the example section. In fact, those two sections are so terrible, I will remove them now. Might make the article less objectionable. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2023 (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.