- 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. --Fang Aili talk 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No independent sources, and its notability is questionable. Patty 21:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as something made up in school one day. All the "sources" are friends of the creator. Interesting but not for wiki. meshach 16:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm torn on this one, as the concept itself has clearly been around for a long while - see Cundy and Rollett's seminal book on mathematical models for more details - but the name used here seems to be a neologism. The concept is often used as a pedagogical tool, and I suspect it's sufficiently widespread and recognised that it should have an article in Wikipedia. This particular article, though, is too much like "something made up in school one day" to really fill the bill, and has the scent of OR. On balance, Delete without prejudice to re-creation as a better and more widely referenced article. WMMartin 13:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely lacks notability as a term, no verifiable sources. Doctormatt 00:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or possibly redirect to Fractal art. The term is not notable, there is plenty of mathematically inspired art about only some of which coverered by this article. --Salix alba (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2007 (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.