Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagrangian coherent structure

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. Consensus is that this is a notable topic, but needs a lot of work and possibly stubification. Sandstein 19:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lagrangian coherent structure

[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 written mostly by a single-purpose editor (User:Georgehaller) who explain on their talk page that they coined the term, and who authored almost all of the cited sources. The issue seems impossible to fix because the article is overly technical. It has seen no edits to content since 2016, when the main author was notified of their conflict of interest. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Mathematics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took a glance at Google Scholars and it seems that it is used in many papers not written by George Haller. WP:DINC should apply here. I am not confident in this vote so I am marking it as a comment.
Keep A Google search shows that the concept appears in many independent sources and practical applications. The COI isn't really a problem because the article doesn't read as promotional. It does read as having a pile of bricks fall on your head, but thats a feature of almost all of our maths articles. small jars tc 16:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's very possible to oversell one's own scientific work. Consider language like LCSs are, therefore, ideal tools for model validation and benchmarking. The person who coined the term and cited his own writings about it isn't in a place to say things like that.
Notability of a scientific concept can't be read off the results of a Google search. XOR'easter (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it can be, when it reveals dozens of reliable sources which either have their primary subject as the topic, or use it as the primary method in a modelling application. I have not linked any sources here only because of their abundance. I'll admit that the article has some tone problems, but they're mostly WP:NOTESSAY, not WP:POV issues. It repeatedly compares LCSs to classical invariant manifolds, but noticeably focusses on their technical differences and avoids stating that one is necessarily more useful than the other. small jars tc 23:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the mere existence of many sources using the words were sufficient reason to keep the article, then one wouldn't even have to run a Google search. The reference list is right there already. The problem here is that the current article text is so thoroughly COI-laden that there is a real question of whether even seemingly bland, flat statements can be trusted. If it's unencyclopedic in tone, organized in an unilluminating way, cited to sources that might or might not be the right ones because the author is including his own papers whenever possible... then there's a legitimate possibility that we're in a blow it up and start over situation.
It's also possible that a term occurs in many reliable scientific publications but is better off being treated as an aspect of a larger topic, rather than being given its own article. An example that just sprang to mind is Kraus operator: Google Scholar finds about 2,900 results, versus about 1,100 for Lagrangian coherent structure, but it doesn't really make sense to give the concept of a Kraus operator its own article instead of explaining it within the article on POVMs or quantum operations, which is why Kraus operator is a redirect to a section of the latter.
It's very possible that when all these factors are considered, the best course of action is to keep the article, but they are factors to consider. XOR'easter (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If kept our article would need a lot of work, but it is about a notable topic. The Google Scholar search linked above does indeed find many peer-reviewed papers written by others about the topic, and there are some books about it.[1][2] Phil Bridger (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is a master's thesis, which is probably not a reliable source. The former is a bachelor's thesis, which is even less likely to be so. XOR'easter (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting me on the books, but I still believe that the topic is notable based on the papers found by Google Scholar. Would you be able suggest any article as a redirect target? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing seems quite the right fit, though it's been a while since I've poked around this corner of the encyclopedia. Fluid dynamics might be a little too broad for the purpose, but it could be a place to start looking (if it turns out that we can't save the page and need a redirect target). XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple WP:BEFORE-style search on GScholar shows several reviews that could serve as secondary sources for the article. Reviews [3], [4], [5] are written by others, and one Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics article written by Haller[6]. There may be others; that is as far as I looked. Unless I am missing something subtle, the topic looks notable and seems to satisfy WP:GNG. In reading the article, there is a lot of good information that is reasonably neutral in tone. But I could believe that there may be some sections that are of undue weight, the intro has too much hype, and sources are indeed biased toward Haller. The article needs a neutral tone, other secondary sources, and possibly a due weight makeover, but I'm not convinced that the problems rise to the point that the article needs WP:TNT. In that essay, TNT is recommended in cases where the content and editing history are all near useless or are actively harmful. I am happy to reconsider if I am missing something big here. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a big job, but if the notability case is persuasive, one way forward would be to stub the article down and build it back. Writing a new introduction based on and pointing to sources written by others would put non-COI content first and foremost. Material from the current version could be brought forward as it's checked out. Just a thought. XOR'easter (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe I am missing something too - but one paper (which is dedicated to the subject) alone from the article references shows highly cited by secondary sources - and therefore should meet notability: 689 documents have cited: Lagrangian coherent structures and mixing in two-dimensional turbulence And: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. ResonantDis_tortion 23:13, 14 March 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.