Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low poly

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 Speedy Keep. No delete arguments besides nom's, who actually doesn't support deletion. Merge discussion in article is recommended. Dream Focus is correct, this was a bad nomination as merger discussions don't belong in AfD, they belong in article talk. Cerejota (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Low poly

Low poly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A Prod with a concern of neologism and subjective analysis. A search did show that the term is used, though it is likely that it is either a dictionary definition, or it could be merged into a relevant article and appropriately sourced. Perhaps merge to Polygonal modeling. This is a procedural listing for purposes of getting wider consensus - I am neither supporting nor opposing deletion. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep No reason to delete is provided. The title is an abbreviation not a neologism. The topic is obviously notable being discussed in detail in sources such as Game modeling using low polygon techniques. AFD is not cleanup - please see WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Smerge to polygonal mesh. Beyond the trivial definition, the article is almost entirely original research and full of unencyclopedic trvialites. The sole source cited also defines high poly. Want an article on that? "High poly is awesome, almost like the real thing, blah, blah. But it's computationally expensive. Wow! Pixar does it using micropolygons. This justifies an article for the term high poly all by itself." There's no in-depth coverage of either of these topics, because they aren't really topics. There are perhaps two paragraphs that are worth keeping from this article, the vague definitions, and the one on normal and bump mapping. Everything else in this article is chaff. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Care to define what do you consider UNENCYCLOPEDIC, other that wp:IDONTLIKEIT? Could the bits that you define as chaff be valid if sources were provided? Diego (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably the most likely explanation for non-encyclopedic is simply that it has a better home at polygonal mesh. Low and/or High are merely abstract degrees. What was once high might be considered low now. Rather than continually adjusting these arbitrary boundaries, just have 1 article, and describe the concept of low or high there. -- Avanu (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was it is not a unified topic addressed at length in academic sources. You won't find bump mapping as a section in the "low poly" chapter of some book. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your argument. Diego (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - The article was proposed for deletion with the following rationale: "neologism; subjective analysis of relative polygon counts, not a subject in itself to be supported by reliable sources".

  The neologism problem exists only when one takes a literal approach to reviewing the article; "low poly" is an adjective and therefore cannot be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. But is this the intent of the article, and is this what the article is? I don't think so. I don't think it is inappropriate to say that what the article is really trying to cover is low-polygon count modeling. The rationale given for why low-polygon count models are used, where they are used, and similar contextual content is clear evidence that the article does not intend to be or is about a neologism. A simple rename of the article to a title such as "Low-polygon count modeling" is all that is needed.

  The issue of subjective analysis, which I assume is referring to content like the Super Mario example, is a problem which also does not require deletion. The problematic content can simply be tagged to give editors an opportunity to cite or re-factor it, or it can just be deleted.

  The final issue stated in the PROD is that no acceptable article can be written about this topic. I find this point unclear and of little weight. It appears to be predicated on the claim that the topic is a neologism, which is unsupported by evidence. Additionally, because the topic (but not necessarily the article's content) is covered at depth by multiple reliable sources, the last claim of the PROD rationale is unsupported by evidence: Looking at the first ten results of a Google Books search for low-polygon count modeling (such as a 353-page book by Chad Gregory Walker and Eric Walker published by Cengage Learning titled Game Modeling Using Low Polygon Techniques), it is clear that encyclopedic coverage can exist, describing what it is, where it is used, why it is used, how it differs from the techniques used in cases where a low polygon count is not required, etc. Rilak (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The concept is distinct from (though related to) Polygonal modeling and Polygonal_mesh - the article covers the specific needs that force the modeler to keep the polygon count low and which are not covered in the other articles. Diego (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Good reponse, I'm actually somewhat swayed by your rationale. Do you think this would preclude it from being merged? Also, considering the nature of this, would a rename solve the issue for everyone? Like instead of Low Poly (and High Poly), maybe just Polygon Modeling Count or something? -- Avanu (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the amount of content that will survive verifiability. Polygonal mesh is already quite long, so adding anything more than two or three paragraphs would be too much. I think there's potential to have much more content for the reasons above; framerates in video-games, tools to convert between high and low meshes, movie rendering, far-away objects... all could be discussed within this subject. I agree that something including polygon count will be a better title; that term is also widely used and doesn't have the relativity to hardware nor the low-poly/high-poly problems. Diego (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My guess (and this is without having fully read the article) is that almost all of the content is verifiable. I think you're right about it being applicable in lots of areas, so really this article could have a pretty bright future if given the right treatment. -- Avanu (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per reasons given by Diego (talk) above. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as per Diego --DeVerm (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
• Keep and stop wasting our time. Don't say "I am neither supporting nor opposing deletion". If you don't support deletion, then don't send something to an AFD. I've discussed the problems of this nomination on the editor's talk page. [1] Dream Focus 02:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Dream, you have actually made no argument for why it should be kept, and simply attacked the nominator. -- Avanu (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I should've said "Close bad nomination". Anyway, others have already explained it isn't "neologism", and the need for an article separate than the rest, it clearly different material. And this is such a basic concept for computer artwork and game design, its covered in just about every book or article ever written about either subject. Dream Focus 14:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Dream. -- Avanu (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Merge to polygonal mesh per FuFoFuEd. —Ruud 09:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Per FuFoFuEd, how do you define WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC? Diego (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Subjectively, I don't like the writing style. Encyclopedic articles should be written in a concise fashion without much unnecessary "fluff". If one would polish this article I suspect it would be better fit as a section in a larger, comprehensive, article than on its own. —Ruud 19:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your argument. Maybe is time to remember that AfDs should be mainly centered on the merits of the topic itself, not the current article state, which can be fixed if the topic has merit (see WP:UGLY (Being poorly written is not grounds for deletion), WP:CHANCE (Don't propose an article for deletion if it hasn't had a chance), WP:DEADLINE (There is no deadline to finish any project), WP:INSPECTOR (An article with few information should be market as stub)). The relevant question as I see it: is the polygon count a relevant topic by itself? Diego (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I didn't vote delete, did I? I just don't see enough potential for a separate article. —Ruud 14:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

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.