Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-pass algorithm: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 13:
* '''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)
* '''Comment''' IMO the article should be kept and cleaned up. The distinction is important in CS, as a one-pass algorithm by definition can deal with arbitrarily large input with bounded memory. I no longer remember who wrote what, but the definition is clear and useful, and the term itself is clearly in use. To me, the fact that a lot of the references are in things like CS course notes tells me that a Wikipedia page on the topic would be useful, but I don't know where that lands us with Notability standards. The part on cluster representatives seems specific to database algorithms, so I'd be inclined to take it out. I'll see if I can dig up a few references and do a little cleanup [[User:Dmh|--dmh]]
| |||