Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-pass algorithm: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Dating comment by Dmh - "" |
→One-pass algorithm: Reply |
||
Line 11:
***Yes. This is a very basic topic: a lot of the results via google are essentially just lecture notes and lecture slides. But what do you mean treated in a different way? I think there's enough material in sources, and precedent on Wikipedia, for one-pass algorithm and [[multi-pass algorithm]] to exist. I will look into TAoCP. <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#006400 !important;font-weight:bold;">//[[User:Lollipoplollipoplollipop|Lollipoplollipoplollipop]]::[[User talk:Lollipoplollipoplollipop|talk]]</span> 11:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
****Knuth points out that it's a vague concept, and treats both together. Enjoy. Volume 1, of course. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 11:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
*:I added a list of possible sources for the article at [[Talk:One-pass algorithm#Potential citations|Talk:One-pass algorithm]] <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#006400 !important;font-weight:bold;">//[[User:Lollipoplollipoplollipop|Lollipoplollipoplollipop]]::[[User talk:Lollipoplollipoplollipop|talk]]</span> 15:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
* '''Speedy keep''', the nominator does not propose a valid [[WP:DEL-REASON]]. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. [[User:SailingInABathTub|SailingInABathTub]] ([[User talk:SailingInABathTub|talk]]) 10:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' No valid reason given for speedy keeping. The article only has one listed source. This article as it stands does not pass GNG, although it may well be possible to add enough sourcing to pass that. We should never speedy keep articles that do not as they are written pass GNG.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 13:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
| |||