Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm

Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an article on an obscure non-notable subject (which is also difficult to identify). No hits in GoogleScholar[1] and a single hit in GoogleBooks[2]. The article was created by User:Sitharama.iyengar1, so also seems to be a WP:COI case. In any event, fails WP:N, in my opinion. Nsk92 (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm an article in the relatively new field of Distributed Sensor Networks (DSN). DSNs have a wide range of real-time applications in aerospace, automation, battle field management, defense, medical imaging, home automation, robotics, and weather prediction. On WP:N: The Brooks-Iyengar hybrid algorithm is notable because it bridges the gap between sensor fusion and Byzantine fault tolerance. Perhaps its notability is relative next to lists of every single Pokemon. But in the field of DSNs, it is notable. I get many more hits with the word hybrid in the title. This article needs a better introduction for the layperson, although the detail is good for a Systems Engineer such as myself to understand. The major ideas need to be introduced. Sensor fusion deals with combining the sensory data from multiple sensors and creating the equivalent of a more reliable sensor. The Byzantine fault tolerance is a mechanism by which failing sensors or faulty network connections between sensors can be ignored. I think the WP:COI issue is minimal and can be overlooked with other editors participating in the edit process. kgrr ^talk 15:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; first of all, this isn't an encyclopedia entry, it does little to explain the topic to a general audience. This could only stay with a total rewrite. But on top of that, there are some severe COI and original research issues. Hairhorn (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]