Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-pass algorithm: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
A note. |
→One-pass algorithm: Reply |
||
Line 9:
*'''Keep''' Loads of hits on scholar and google about this. I believe it can be brought up to encyclopedic standards. <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#006400 !important;font-weight:bold;">//[[User:Lollipoplollipoplollipop|Lollipoplollipoplollipop]]::[[User talk:Lollipoplollipoplollipop|talk]]</span> 10:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
** It's hard to find an actual source for this, but that's because (a) it's so basic and (b) this needs to be treated in a different way. [[Donald Knuth|Knuth]] discusses both single- and multiple- pass algorithms in ''TAoCP'', in the "Coroutines" section, if anyone wants to have Wikipedia discuss this in the way that an expert does. But I see no need for any administrator tools in renaming, refactoring, rewriting, and improving an article that ''one has researched''. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 10:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
**: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)
* '''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)
| |||