- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Probalign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can't see any evidence of this tool's notability. This was the only source I could find with any depth that wasn't written by the creators. Sam Walton (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, even though your linked source is in fact written by the creators - it's the paper they published describing the method. The paper has been cited 140 times, and the method was still producing reasonably competitive performance as recently as 2013-2014 benchmarks (described here and here). When other scientists discuss the method and compare it to their own work, that's perfectly good "secondary coverage". Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. A relatively well known method. My very best wishes (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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.