This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Original research. Delete. Lupo 11:46, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- delete. Although peer-reviewed research can pass my threshold for OR, this does not. Brighterorange 13:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete--Outlander 14:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
userfy to ADIOS Clueless newbie. Lets not bite his head off, or at least give him the benefit of the doubt. Roodog2k 14:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]- delete as per above, sorry, I thought there was a ADIOS Roodog2k 14:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: News pages commenting this algorithm: http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/8802, http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/08/31/2340232.shtml?tid=185&tid=14 The actual article where it was published: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/102/33/11629 reprint on slashdot http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=160737&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=185&tid=14&mode=thread&cid=13451664
- Keep but clean up, seems notable and previously puplished DV8 2XL 16:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have tagged it as a possible copyvio--Joelito 16:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.