Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm: : ==> * |
|||
Line 13:
::I think that COI is a significant consideration to keep in mind, but, more importantly, I still do not see substantial [[WP:V|verifiable]] evidence of [[WP:N|notability]] of the topic. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 17:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
:::The original paper, Richard R. Brooks and S. Sithrama Iyengar (Jun 1996). "Robust Distributed Computing and Sensing Algorithm". Computer (IEEE) 29 (6): pp. 53-60. doi:10.1109/2.507632. ISSN 0018-9162 is referred by at least two books and a half of a dozen peer-reviewed journal papers. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=13594244700994039809&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=1G-oS5HfLpLmswOztvGBAw&sa=X&oi=science_links&resnum=3&ct=sl-citedby&ved=0CB4QzgIwAjgU Google Scholar search showing 50 references citing the paper] How many of these references do you need to establish notability? Books and journal papers are certainly considered reliable sources. If the paper is cited by other works and the paper is cited in several survey papers and at least two books covering sensor networks, then this satisfies the secondary source requirement. The other works are independent of Richard R. Brooks and S. Sithrama Iyengar. Tell me what all you need, I will look it all up for you. [[User:kgrr|<font style="background: lightblue"> kgrr</font>]] [[User talk:kgrr|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 07:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' Notability has been shown. Certainly needs a popular science makeover but that's no reason to delete. --[[User:Pgallert|Pgallert]] ([[User talk:Pgallert|talk]]) 10:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
| |||