749:
actually a community—in the sense of a mutually inter-communicating group of people—who incite each other to this sort of behavior: instead of looking for articles existing only to express personal points of view, they look for articles that use personal pronouns, and tag them as "essays", etc., without looking at the context or meaning. Thus someone writes "We can then deduce that..." when they could have written "It can then be deduced that...", and it gets nominated for deletion on the grounds that it's an "essay or personal reflection". Instead of tagging it, they could have slightly rephrased the sentence, or just recognized that a metaphor is a metaphor and is not to be taken literally. Those who do this should be opposed. Knowledge should be protected from them.
821:: to Wikiboooks. This seems to be a guide to creating images; it may have a place but it's not Knowledge. Rewriting or fixing individual problems would not change the fundamental issue here which is there is not a notable subject for the article. The M set is notable but that does not imply images of it are; Barack Obama is notable but that doesn't mean we need an article called "Pictures of Barack Obama". Gandalf61 brings up a good point about sourcing, but it may be possible to find sources for this material. But even sourced material is inappropriate for an encyclopedia if it's in the nature of a
356:, at least for a few weeks to allow time for improvement. The article does have several problems as pointed out above, but these are mostly minor and could be fixed by sourcing and copyediting. The topic itself seems a legitimate subject for a wikipedia article. Much of the article is fairly standard stuff rather than original research, and could probably be sourced with a little effort. The pictures may be "original research" but this is not a big deal as they are quite similar to other published pictures.
795:
Problems with style can indeed be addressed by rewriting, and if they were the only problems with the article then I would not have brought it to AfD. But style problems are a side issue here. The central issue, which no-one seems willing or able to take any practical steps to address, is that the
654:
It seems to be a mix of stuff: maths on fractals that's covered well in the relevant articles already, and the authors opinions on what makes a "nice" ("atractive", "striking", "surprising" or "extraordinary") image of a fractal, with overlong exposition on how to make such images, badly laid out,
318:
is continuous and bounded", etc., and it's not meant literally. It means that whatever statements follow are valid in cases where that assumption is true. That said, possibly some of the images should be put into the "Julia set" and "Mandelbrot" set articles rather than having their own article.
748:
the language can be cleaned up and other improvements done. In particular, specious arguments claiming the article is written largely in the first person are playing a noticeable role in this discussion and thereby getting in the way of discussion of issues that can be taken seriously. There is
766:
There is a big difference between writing "we can deduce that" in e.g. a mathematical proof and the text here which uses it to quite different effect. Try re-writing "we can get a nice play of colours" without using the first person in an encyclopaedic way. This tone is a problem from the first
775:
the whole article draws from the author's personal views on what makes an attractive image. It doesn't just need the language fixing as the whole premise of the article is flawed, and needs reliable sources but as it's largely original research they will be difficult to find.
313:
says the same thing without the "we". Some of these "we"s—maybe all of them—can be similarly rephrased. Even if there are some that can't, a metaphor is a metaphor. In mathematical writing, one often encounters "We assume that the
163:
521:
Well, you yourself provided a source above. That clearly indicates the notability of the topic, no? If it is just a matter of adding this reference to the article, then I really don't see what the problem is.
379:
for example; discussions with the author indicate that it is based on the author's own unpublished work ; and the author has ignored several requests to add their sources (which is how we got here).
157:
474:, I had suggested a transwiki, although this suggestion did not generate any further input, and I honestly don't know enough to make a compelling proposal—but the suggestion still stands.
91:
86:
95:
49:
78:
52:
for further work or reference in creating the author's
Wikibooks project. I see no reason to erase the history. Deletion has been requested by the original author, below. -
458:
per r.e.b. I don't see any glaring original research problems. Clearly some sources need to be added, and perhaps the author should be approached about that. A merge or
698:
118:
724:
123:
375:
Obviously, if you know of reliable sources then please add them to the article. I have never seen sources for most of this material - it goes beyond anything in
598:
covers this topic adequately. I should think that some if not most content can be both sourced and merged by someone with the time and inclination to do so.
194:
Unsourced textbook-style article that appears to be mostly OR and a showcase for the author's fractal images. Have tagged article and explained issues on
655:
written largely in the first person and unsourced. So a poorly written content fork with some OR mixed in. Nothing that I can see worth keeping.--
178:
145:
783:
662:
638:
847:
438:
399:
859:
834:
809:
787:
758:
739:
713:
684:
666:
642:
609:
533:
510:
485:
446:
428:
407:
388:
365:
342:
328:
284:
232:
211:
60:
139:
333:
How can it be considered a "how to" article? A "how to" article explains how to do something. That's not what this article does.
135:
17:
498:
195:
82:
605:
529:
481:
185:
220:
74:
66:
675:
The claim that it is "written largely in the first person" is specious at best, as I have already pointed out above.
876:
151:
36:
599:
523:
475:
875:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
754:
680:
442:
403:
338:
324:
228:
305:
etc. Superficially, "we" means the author and someone else. But one cannot construe this "we" literally.
556:
376:
467:
855:
805:
778:
657:
633:
572:
506:
424:
384:
207:
171:
822:
750:
676:
471:
334:
320:
246:
224:
199:
735:
709:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
830:
361:
57:
631:
the author now wants the article deleted - see their comments on the talk page and here.--
800:
unsourced and the author has more or less admitted that it is mostly original research.
851:
801:
768:
568:
502:
420:
380:
266:
262:
203:
459:
731:
705:
112:
826:
595:
564:
463:
416:
357:
53:
846:
The author has started to copy the contents of this article into a
Wikibook at
772:
258:
257:") and more. Also, there are already plenty of images and info on the
308:"If there are more than two Fatou domains, it can be inferred that..."
551:
No, no, no, exactly the opposite. My point is that this material is
202:) shows no intention of adding sources or addressing other issues.
767:
paragraph, and apart from the bits that replicate the content of
255:
All other
Mandelbrot sets are more or less ugly in their entirety
869:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
300:"If there are more than two Fatou domains, we can infer that..."
398:
is there a wikibook to move this to, or wikiversity topic?
563:
a source for this article. We already have an article on
48:
but not really. Article has been moved w/o redirect to
108:
104:
100:
170:
50:
User:Gertbuschmann/Images of Julia and
Mandelbrot sets
501:. They have not done so. That is why we are here.
265:articles, making this one even more superfluous.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
879:). No further edits should be made to this page.
699:list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions
848:wikibooks:Pictures of Julia and Mandelbrot sets
725:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
184:
8:
719:
693:
567:that covers the general topic adequately.
472:WT:WPM#Promotional essay articles prodded
723:: This debate has been included in the
697:: This debate has been included in the
499:Talk:Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets
293:I disagree about the inappropriate tone.
249:article, full of inappropriate tone ("
7:
497:been asked to provide sources - see
470:, might be another possibility. At
251:We will state all the definitions...
58:killing the human spirit since 2003!
221:Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets
75:Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets
67:Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
896:
285:14:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
233:16:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
212:09:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
872:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
860:08:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
835:19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
810:16:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
788:15:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
759:14:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
740:19:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
714:19:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
685:13:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
667:13:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
643:13:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
610:21:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
594:I rather disagree that
534:14:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
511:13:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
486:12:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
447:03:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
429:13:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
408:12:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
389:08:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
366:05:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
343:02:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
329:02:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
61:13:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
435:TRANSWIKI to WikiBooks
557:Peitgen & Richter
377:Peitgen & Richter
746:Keep at least until
466:, as suggested by
417:wikibooks:Fractals
253:"), NPOV issues ("
219:I want my article
200:User:Gertbuschmann
44:The result was
781:
742:
728:
716:
702:
660:
636:
887:
874:
777:
729:
703:
656:
632:
602:
526:
478:
282:
279:
276:
273:
189:
188:
174:
126:
116:
98:
34:
895:
894:
890:
889:
888:
886:
885:
884:
883:
877:deletion review
870:
786:
665:
641:
600:
524:
476:
280:
277:
274:
271:
131:
122:
89:
73:
70:
54:Smerdis of Tlön
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
893:
891:
882:
881:
865:
864:
863:
862:
838:
837:
815:
814:
813:
812:
790:
782:
779:JohnBlackburne
769:Mandelbrot set
743:
717:
690:
689:
688:
687:
670:
669:
661:
658:JohnBlackburne
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
637:
634:JohnBlackburne
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
601:Sławomir Biały
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
539:
538:
537:
536:
525:Sławomir Biały
516:
515:
514:
513:
477:Sławomir Biały
468:User:Radagast3
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
392:
391:
369:
368:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
311:
310:
309:
303:
302:
301:
295:
294:
288:
287:
267:Andrew Lenahan
263:Mandelbrot set
239:
238:
237:
236:
198:, but author (
192:
191:
128:
124:AfD statistics
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
892:
880:
878:
873:
867:
866:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
842:
841:
840:
839:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
817:
816:
811:
807:
803:
799:
794:
791:
789:
785:
780:
774:
770:
765:
762:
761:
760:
756:
752:
751:Michael Hardy
747:
744:
741:
737:
733:
726:
722:
718:
715:
711:
707:
700:
696:
692:
691:
686:
682:
678:
677:Michael Hardy
674:
673:
672:
671:
668:
664:
659:
653:
650:
644:
640:
635:
630:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
611:
607:
603:
597:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
535:
531:
527:
520:
519:
518:
517:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
489:
488:
487:
483:
479:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
454:
448:
444:
440:
439:70.29.208.247
436:
432:
431:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
411:
410:
409:
405:
401:
400:70.29.208.247
397:
394:
393:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
371:
370:
367:
363:
359:
355:
352:
351:
344:
340:
336:
335:Michael Hardy
332:
331:
330:
326:
322:
321:Michael Hardy
317:
312:
307:
306:
304:
299:
298:
297:
296:
292:
291:
290:
289:
286:
283:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
241:
240:
234:
230:
226:
225:Gertbuschmann
222:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
125:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
871:
868:
843:
823:how to guide
818:
797:
792:
763:
745:
720:
694:
651:
628:
560:
552:
548:
494:
490:
455:
434:
412:
395:
372:
353:
315:
270:
254:
250:
242:
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
45:
43:
31:
28:
796:article is
596:fractal art
565:fractal art
493:The author
464:fractal art
433:Well then,
158:free images
852:Gandalf61
819:Transwiki
802:Gandalf61
773:Julia set
732:• Gene93k
706:• Gene93k
569:Gandalf61
503:Gandalf61
421:Gandalf61
415:there is
381:Gandalf61
314:function
259:Julia set
223:deleted (
204:Gandalf61
196:talk page
798:entirely
559:- it is
245:big ol'
119:View log
844:Comment
793:Comment
764:comment
629:Comment
549:Comment
491:Comment
413:Comment
396:Comment
373:Comment
164:WP refs
152:scholar
92:protect
87:history
827:RDBury
652:delete
460:smerge
358:r.e.b.
243:Delete
136:Google
96:delete
46:delete
784:deeds
663:deeds
639:deeds
462:with
247:HOWTO
179:JSTOR
140:books
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
856:talk
831:talk
806:talk
771:and
755:talk
736:talk
721:Note
710:talk
695:Note
681:talk
606:talk
573:talk
530:talk
507:talk
482:talk
456:Keep
443:talk
425:talk
404:talk
385:talk
362:talk
354:Keep
339:talk
325:talk
261:and
229:talk
208:talk
172:FENS
146:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
825:.--
730:--
704:--
561:not
555:in
553:not
495:has
278:bli
186:TWL
121:•
117:– (
858:)
850:.
833:)
808:)
776:--
757:)
738:)
727:.
712:)
701:.
683:)
608:)
532:)
509:)
484:)
445:)
437:.
427:)
419:.
406:)
387:)
364:)
341:)
327:)
281:nd
275:ar
272:St
269:-
231:)
210:)
166:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
56:-
854:(
829:(
804:(
753:(
734:(
708:(
679:(
604:(
575:)
571:(
528:(
505:(
480:(
441:(
423:(
402:(
383:(
360:(
337:(
323:(
316:ƒ
235:)
227:(
206:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
127:)
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.