Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boustrophedon cell decomposition

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was kept per consensus (non-admin closure). Article isn't a book promotion. PeterSymonds | talk 13:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boustrophedon cell decomposition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An article with only 1 reference and that is a book promotion page. This page maybe mostly for promoting the book. So promotional and lacks notability. Triwbe (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on!

I assume the user who submitted the deletion request doesn't actually know anything about cell decompositions or the like. It is a legit topic, first of all, and secondly, I am a regular user with a pretty decent history on Wikipedia, so I am not trying to "advertise a book". The source I provided was a quick hit off Google to a PDF research paper; did you even look at it? The full text of the paper is available for free at the link provided as the first source. Two reasons why I did not make the article better: 1) I am far from an expert in this field and 2) I didn't have a lot of time. I created the article while doing my computer science homework and thought it was silly that Wikipedia didn't have ANYTHING on a legit scholarly topic. I felt that a "stub" was better than nothing, and that someone more qualified to talk about the topic would stumble across it and enrich it to it's full potential. Alex (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is a bit of a stub right now, but the reference is a good one and more than some articles start out with. Article about a topic covered in academic literature, with one solid reference right from the start...looks like a good start. Coanda-1910 (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I'm no expert, but it did look like a legitimate topic (and not a book promotion) when I googled it. Not sure whether it's notable enough, hence the weak keep. Klausness (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on all the Google scholar references, changing from "Weak keep" to "Keep". Klausness (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google scholar turns up sufficient coverage, including third-party uses of this technique, to convince me that it's worth describing. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Motion planning where the term will get better in-context treatment. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

snowball keep- it's not about a book, and it's not advertising one. special, random, Merkinsmum 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not an ad for the book. archanamiya · talk 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the afd seems to be a misunderstanding of the nature of the article. DGG (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.