Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icosahedral–hexagonal grids in weather prediction

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 notable subject; the decision of whether to merge is left to the editors involved. El_C 18:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Icosahedral–hexagonal grids in weather prediction

Icosahedral–hexagonal grids in weather prediction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This mathematical topic (about numerical solution of partial differential equations) seems to be too specialized even for a merger to possible parent articles. An expert review by WikiProject Mathematics was slightly in favor of AfD, so I am listing it here. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 07:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - an incredibly specific and minor part of a larger process, that would barely be notable on weather prediction. Somethings are simply too specific to have their own pages; this is one. --Haemo 07:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Since when do we delete articles on perfectly legitimate scientific topics just because they are "too specialized"? The article could potentially be merged into a larger article about the types of grids used in climate modeling, but if there is none yet, there's no reason to delete this one. --Itub 11:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's not in widespread use, the nomination is in line with WP:SCI. --B. Wolterding 14:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Not being in widespread use is not the same as being too specialized. And as far as I can tell, this term is widely used among climate modelers. There are over a hundred scholarly articles that use it, and it also appears in books in the field. --Itub 15:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Further comment: this topic is not really about differential equations, but about cartography or geometry (although the grids can be used, together with the differential equations, to model the Earth's climate). The article is not very clear as it is now; I suggest reading [1] and [2] for more information. Especially the PDF in the second site, [3]. After looking at those sites, I would suggest renaming the article to Discrete global grid or something similar, and eventually expand it to discuss the various types of grids (triangular, diamond, hexagon aperture 3, hexagon aperture 4). --Itub 11:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, since no good reason has been given for deletion. The article is specialized, and if a merger was suggested it might be appropriate. If not, let's leave the article to grow as it will. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Further comment: Why did the Math project review this? It seems only narrowly connected to mathematics at all. Sure, it applies a mathematical technique to work, but so do many other fields... CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse my naiveness, but numerical solution of equations, as well as geometry, are clearly mathematical topics to me... So I asked WikiProject Mathematics for a review. --B. Wolterding 15:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually now that I think about it a math review wasn't a bad idea, though I still don't think it's a particularly mathematical topic. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Definitely the article needs to get cleaned up; it needs to list published sources that are mentioned but not listed, and it could use more mathematical details. But the skimpy peer review linked to here looks at it from the wrong viewpoint. This may be at most a minor topic within applied mathematics--a footnote to another article, perhaps--but nonetheless it may be a major topic within the field of weather modelling (I don't know if it is or not). Michael Hardy 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to geodesic grid. The two articles describe the same thing. In particular, the geodesic grid article could benefit from some of the references listed in icosahedral–hexagonal grids in weather prediction. Of course, someone needs to sort through which ones... :/ Lunch 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've been bold and merged most of the text to geodesic grid. I'm a little more than an amateur at gridding techniques and shallow-water modelling, but less than an expert. Someone should check up on my efforts here. Lunch 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with merging it with geodesic grid. That's exactly the kind of article I had in mind as a merge destination, but I couldn't find it... --Itub 07:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per Lunch, and consider speedy keep, since the nomination was procedural, and a merge doesn't need AfD, just editing. (Note that geodesic grid does define the what the IH grid is.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• This article seems to have little chance of developing, as it basically exists to say that these grids are used in weather forecasting. Should be merged to an article on weather forecasting. As a thought experiment, what if there was an article on cubes in the finite element method? In any case, the article in its present location should be deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• The article has been around for months and never had any content other than incomplete references to the literature; it was proposed for deletion not because it's a bad topic but because it showed no signs of growing into a useful article. I'm pleased that an appropriate "mergeto" was found. —Tamfang 06:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Keep per Lunch and someone should clean up the references before it's merged. —MJCdetroit 11:58, 27 July 2007 (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.