Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sparse representation of a number: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:49, 9 August 2016

Revision as of 06:40, 9 August 2016

Line 9:

*'''Delete''' The first example given in the article is basically [[run length encoding]] for the digits of a binary number. RLE for binary strings is well known and has been used in some compression schemes. While figuring out arithmetic algorithms for the RLE representation is an interesting academic exercise, I was unable to find sources (other than the section of the paper discussed above) discussing this representation either as a sparse number or as a run length encoded number. It leads me to believe that the article, while well-intentioned, is [[WP:OR|original research]]. Without multiple in-depth reliable sources per [[WP:RS]], this topic fails notability thresholds as described in [[WP:GNG]]. Given the mention in the paper above, this could be selectively merged into [[Skew binary number system]], but just a single section of a single primary paper is a thin foundation for a merge. Deletion, until multiple sources become available that discuss this number system, may be the best course. --[[User:Mark viking|Mark viking]] ([[User talk:Mark viking|talk]]) 00:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. Sparse representations of bitvectors are definitely important, and there has even been some interesting research on algorithmic problems of arithmetic with sparse binary numbers (those with few 1's in their binary representation; see Plaisted, "New NP-hard and NP-complete polynomial and integer divisibility problems", FOCS 1977). That said, this article doesn't touch on any of that
*:Indeed, since it is an unrelated subject. The only common things between both of those topics is that the adjective sparse appear in them and they are used for data structure [[User:Arthur MILCHIOR|Arthur MILCHIOR]] ([[User talk:Arthur MILCHIOR|talk]]) 06:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
*, its references are useless for establishing notability of this topic (they're on something peripheral to it), and to the extent that what it says is non-obvious it appears to be original research. So, per [[WP:TNT]], if this were to be turned into a usable article it would need to be completely rewritten, and there's no point in keeping the present version while we wait for that to happen. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 00:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

*I'm not going to vote. I think I can find more sources, but not after the end of the summer holiday, when I'll be back in my university. Since it's going to take at least a month, and that I understand very-well that there is no easy way right now to assess notability, I understand that it will be deleted. But, no original research, even if I clearly see that there is no way to distinguish OR from non-OR without sources. Even if it is not merged to [[Skew binary number system]], if (when) this page is deleted, the Skew page will need to be edited in order to explain how sparseness can be used on numbers presetend in a Skew binary system. [[User:Arthur MILCHIOR|Arthur MILCHIOR]] ([[User talk:Arthur MILCHIOR|talk]]) 06:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)