Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-pass algorithm
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- One-pass algorithm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Loads of hits on scholar and google about this. I believe it can be brought up to encyclopedic standards. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 10:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's hard to find an actual source for this, but that's because (a) it's so basic and (b) this needs to be treated in a different way. Knuth discusses both single- and multiple- pass algorithms in TAoCP, in the "Coroutines" section, if anyone wants to have Wikipedia discuss this in the way that an expert does. But I see no need for any administrator tools in renaming, refactoring, rewriting, and improving an article that one has researched. Uncle G (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. This is a very basic topic: a lot of the results via google are essentially just lecture notes and lecture slides. But what do you mean treated in a different way? I think there's enough material in sources, and precedent on Wikipedia, for one-pass algorithm and multi-pass algorithm to exist. I will look into TAoCP. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 11:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Knuth points out that it's a vague concept, and treats both together. Enjoy. Volume 1, of course. Uncle G (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. This is a very basic topic: a lot of the results via google are essentially just lecture notes and lecture slides. But what do you mean treated in a different way? I think there's enough material in sources, and precedent on Wikipedia, for one-pass algorithm and multi-pass algorithm to exist. I will look into TAoCP. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 11:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's hard to find an actual source for this, but that's because (a) it's so basic and (b) this needs to be treated in a different way. Knuth discusses both single- and multiple- pass algorithms in TAoCP, in the "Coroutines" section, if anyone wants to have Wikipedia discuss this in the way that an expert does. But I see no need for any administrator tools in renaming, refactoring, rewriting, and improving an article that one has researched. Uncle G (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment No valid reason given for speedy keeping. The article only has one listed source. This article as it stands does not pass GNG, although it may well be possible to add enough sourcing to pass that. We should never speedy keep articles that do not as they are written pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)