Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chua's circuit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chua's circuit
According to the reference in the talk page, there are over 700 papers about this circuit. So why aren't any of them referenced in the article. I'd suggest speedy (no assertion of notability), but I'm not sure that applies to electrical circuits. See below — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Expand. [1] might be a start. Definitely a notable circuit for the amateur chaos theoretician. Tevildo 18:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - it's even got a book about it. Dlyons493
- Amazon rank #3,086,346??? How many copies is that? 4? Nonetheless, Withdraw AfD, and Speedy Keep (with an expand tag). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well yes, but then it's got very little sex, religion or politics in it :-) There's at least two books and over 800 Google Scholar hits so I think it really is notable among electrical circuits. 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Amazon rank #3,086,346??? How many copies is that? 4? Nonetheless, Withdraw AfD, and Speedy Keep (with an expand tag). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for the reasons above. --ColourBurst 20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above - though I'm sure they've been putting these in toasters for years. --DaveG12345 01:40, 7 July 2006 (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.
