Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic errors of numerical methods of ODE discretization
- 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 delete. Sandstein 06:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Dynamic errors of numerical methods of ODE discretization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm going to go WP:OR on this one. Basically a definition of a mathematical method, and the article was created by one of the authors of the first reference. It seems to just be a Runge-Kutta method, but it's not listed as a Runge-Kutta method. There's basically no context for this; we don't have a usage example, and the ability to understand what this is about probably requires a PhD in theoretical mathematics. MSJapan (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I was unable to find any mention of dynamical characteristic in this ODE context independent of the preprint, this Wikipedia article, or derivatives of the WP article. Without independent reliable sourcing, the topic fails notability per WP:GNG and the complete lack of independent sourcing means there is nothing verifiable to merge or to redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I seem to be on a 50/50 keep/delete schedule with MSJapan. I have been exposed to theoretical mathematics for years but can not remember anything about dynamic errors with real and imaginary dynamic characteristics... and yet I find this exact string here: [1] That still does not make a good reference and thus we must conclude that the article fails the notability guideline. DeVerm (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2016 (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.