Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movable cellular automaton

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. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movable cellular automaton[edit]

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

Changing PROD to AfD. The reason given for the prod was "This is just a page for the authors research." The page has multiple issues but I don't think it should be deleted without due discussion. RDBury (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Movable cellular automaton" method sometime is called as "Movable cellular automata" method. :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) There is redirection from "Movable cellular automata" to "Movable cellular automaton" in Wikipedia. Laesod (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article presents description of a numerical method in modern computational mechanics and must not be deleted. I agree that the current version of the page has to be corrected to meet Wikipedia requirements. Asmolin (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. Looking at the article, I see a sufficiently long reference list to meet the general notability guideline. Without a compelling case that the article text is synthesis, I don't see a reason to delete the article. I do agree that the article needs improvement. —C.Fred (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve for meeting Wikipedia requirements. Krege (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I see it the most serious issue with the article is that it (at least the original version) seems to be about the author's own research. This brings up WP:COI issues and at the very least the article needs to be carefully reviewed to ensure that it is balanced and represents a variety of unrelated sources. My other concern was the lack of secondary sources; none are given in the article and I was unable to find any myself. The subject does seem to have applications in a variety of different areas so I don't think WP:Notability should be a reason for deletion.--RDBury (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Their main paper has 58 citations in google scholar. There is some secondary coverage in the books listed in the article, but it's 1-2 paragraphs in each, e.g. [1] Pcap ping 16:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but is in serious need of a cleanup. It looks as though it's been quite roughly translated, for one. I'm curious as to why this came up in mathematics, as this is either a computer science or a physics topic, probably the latter. Sojourner001 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 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.