Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N-Dimensional rotation matrix generation algorithm

:{{la|N-Dimensional rotation matrix generation algorithm}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/N-Dimensional_rotation_matrix_generation_algorithm Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|N-Dimensional rotation matrix generation algorithm}})

Not a suitable topic for an article. I proposed it for deletion when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N-Dimensional_rotation_matrix_generation_algorithm&oldid=791920673 it was just one method]; it’s been expanded since but not in a good way. It’s even clearer it’s not on a single topic, or at least not one we don’t already have articles on, such as Orthogonal matrix and Rotation matrix. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - The original creator of the article has written his response here on this page's talk page. Bakilas (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – Without regard to the present quality of the article: I believe this is an actual topic. Perhaps not a very notable one (like the topic of rotational invariance of physical laws), but important enough for those who actually must generate such matrices in practical problems. I'd agree with the page creator that it could be included in rotation matrix, but it would be too specialized for inclusion there. YohanN7 (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Rotation matrix is too narrow and article, being on such matrices in 3D primarily. The article Orthogonal matrix is at an appropriate level and already covers the same ground at the end of the section Elementary constructions, in an encyclopaedic way. There is no need for a separate article on the same subject, where the content added is content unsuited to Wikipedia, per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. I can't evaluate the sources, but as a layperson this seems far too specialized for a general purpose reference work.  Sandstein  10:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per NOTTEXTBOOK. This is also much too specialized for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - copyvio of http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ajcam.20170702.04.html. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

::Hmm, except that article is CC 4.0 and is cited at the bottom, so I'm not 100% sure... I should also note that both this article and that one are probably by the same person. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

:::Yes. The version I proposed for deletion (linked above or check the history) contained just one method, the one in that paper, and normally we do not have articles on methods unless they are especially notable, which this clearly was not. Also the article’s creator is the same as the author of that paper, based on their name and their focus on this one article. Since then they’ve added more methods, so it is more on methods for orthogonal matrices, but unfortunately we already have an article on such matrices, which covers such methods in an appropriate way.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.