Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantelides algorithm: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) →Pantelides algorithm: woth keeping IF improved -- little there which woild be in a good article, though |
|||
Line 9:
:That might be a plausible reason to keep the article, ''if'' there was anything in the article worth keeping. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 06:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
::If the article is improved (introduction, better sources), you agree that it is worth keeping? I'll see what I can do through this weekend to improve the article. --[[User:Rhodin|Rhodin]] ([[User talk:Rhodin|talk]]) 20:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
:::Accepting David Eppstein's note below, yes. I still say that there is only one sentence worth keeping in the article as I last read it. Keeping [[WP:TNT]] in mind, .... — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 14:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics|list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Coolabahapple|Coolabahapple]] ([[User talk:Coolabahapple|talk]]) 05:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)</small>
*'''Keep'''. Google scholar shows 584 citations to the original publication of this algorithm, and 182 publications using the exact phrase "Pantelides algorithm", making it clearly notable. The fact that our current article is a stub in need of expansion is not a valid reason for deletion. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 06:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
| |||