Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damn fast Fourier transform
- 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 delete. Secret account 02:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn fast Fourier transform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This topic is mentioned in exactly one book, and makes no sense. There is insufficient context or explanation, but I've decoded it and can state that it is clearly not a "fast" was to compute a FT or DFT; it is an incremental DFT, giving the DFT on an sliding window, which is very different from what it claims to be, which is some guy's idiosyncratic idea. Let's get rid of it, since it's not notable (that is, it does not have multiple independent reliable sources). Dicklyon (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a Google search on "damn fast fourier transform" -Wikipedia gets 6 hits. Not a significant algorithm; probably a scientific WP:NEO. JJL (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete may even be a advertisement for the method. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I did a search on google scholar and found another 2 articles on the subject. I also noticed that it have computer science stub on it but the subject would appeal more to a electric engineer than a computer scientist. I suggest that we add a tech stub to the page and give it another chance. Equanimous2 (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But wait – those are both ARRL publications by Doug Smith, KF6DX, the guy who made it up. There are no independent uses of this concept or name. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All sources are written by one person, so it's not notable, and I trust Dick on this topic. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:30, 21 January 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.