Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar Tree

Polar Tree

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

Article is based on original research (unpublished material). Unable to find any reliable sources to sufficiently establish notability for this subject. Sebastian Garth (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Sebastian Garth (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Sebastian Garth (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged this for further information and for notability, but that hasn't happened. No evidence of notability. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'd say it's WP:OR but can't be sure. A mathematician needs to look at it. Certainly their is no mention in Google books, and you would expect at least a few hits. scope_creep (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article provides improvement of two previously known since 60 years ago methods of constructing prefix codes. Original research started 60 years ago. The method is recognized and used by independent software developer, not affiliated with author. NO NOTABILITY, NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I suggest to ask an opinion of mathematicians involved in data compression. User Proudfoot published article about garden in China. That does not say anything about his qualification in the article subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide independent, third party reliable sources? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here http://code.google.com/p/lzham/ The person who published reference and tested algorithm is not my friend. I did not study with him in university and did not drink in a pub.