Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Neumann Cellular Automata
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) at 19:23, 27 July 2023 (Fix Linter errors.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 19:23, 27 July 2023 by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) (Fix Linter errors.)
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 of the debate was keep Ingoolemo talk 06:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really say anything beyond the title. Basically an "I'll put something here soon" message that hasn't been touched since July. — Gwalla | Talk 05:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- this is a stub for a legitimate subfield of Computer Science. I will add the "stub" template. BeteNoir 06:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The topic is already touched upon at Cellular automaton, but I think it could be expanded into a valid article of its own. (Unfortunately, that's where my expertise pretty much ends; I know it's significant, but, uh, wouldn't know how to actually write a decent article about it...) -- Captain Disdain 07:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Stubs should be expanded, not deleted. Perodicticus 11:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep wiki stubs are an eventualist's dream. Jacqui ★ 15:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. --R.Koot 16:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is this different from a Von Neumann machine? If not, a redirect would be appropriate. If so... in what way? All I know about this is what I've read in SF books (FIJAGH). - 17:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Cellular automaton. Denni☯ 03:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per Denni. I haven't seen much evidence that topics with zero-content stubs get written up any faster than topics that simply have no article. If someone wants to write an article on the topic, it's not any harder to do it starting with the redirect than starting from the stub. --Trovatore 16:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect as per Denni & Trovatore. Pete.Hurd 21:40, 5 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.