Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Map-based controller: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Map-based controller: rename target |
No such user (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 16:
*'''Redirect''' to [[Lookup table#Data acquisition and control systems]]. I'm vaguely familiar with the control-systems field, and I don't think that a "map-based controller" is a "thing" in itself. Rather, it's a rather vague description of a "controller that has a lookup table", and many control system designs have one. Googling scholarly articles for "map-based control(ler)", it seems that most of those take the term as a descriptive phrase rather than a term of art, i.e. more or less a [[WP:DICDEF]]. It does not seem that the sources out there will permit writing a coherent article – the term is too vague to be useful. [[User:No such user|No such user]] ([[User talk:No such user|talk]]) 08:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
*'''Keep but rename''' to [[map-based control]]. This properly belongs as a topic in [[control theory]], not in the theory of lookup tables. Google Scholar has nearly 500 hits for "map-based control", 26 of them in the title. Google Books also has some relevant-looking hits, and there are many others for closely-related phrases such as "map-based ECMS" (one particular application of this technique with over 100 GS hits). There should be plenty of adequate sourcing among them, although the sourcing in the current stub looks adequate for a stub. Although there are also hits for "map-based controller", they are significantly less numerous. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 07:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
*:[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]]: but I honestly looked for in-depth coverage, and came up empty. As I said, most papers are devoted to particular applications and take the term for granted. I opened a couple of control theory textbooks at GBooks, expecting a section or a chapter on the topic (looking for "map" or "lookup"), but did not find anything. I'm not an expert in the field, granted, but if after 15 years of existence all that we can say is that there {{tq|should be plenty of adequate sourcing among them}} without anyone finding it, we'd be better off without this article, without prejudice of a recreation. Yes, [[WP:ITEXISTS]], but the current single sentence amounting to a dicdef is not useful for anyone. [[User:No such user|No such user]] ([[User talk:No such user|talk]]) 14:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
| |||