Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest palindromic substring

Longest palindromic substring

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

Question one: Is the licence "Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) " suitable for Wikipedia? Because the article is a one-on-one-copy from here. Question 2: is the subject clear and notable enough? It is a bit of a fuzzy subject and I can't make heads or tails out of it. About 8000 Google and zero GNews hits (for what it is worth) and 1 Google Scholar hit. Is this a keep or delete??? Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Is this a keep or delete???" Well, if you can't provide a deletion rationale based on a policy, then it can't be a delete. So Keep and close based on the fact the nominator doesn't make any arguements for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

aha, a technocrat who only want rules and policies and hates discussions. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rumbled. Lugnuts (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of there being no justification for that inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lean toward Delete or transwiki to WikiVersity or WikiBooks. It's an article about an algorithm to solve a problem; the problem has some notability (although not justified in the article, itself), but the algorithm does not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice the nominator. In spite of the fact I don't agree with him about hardly anything, it still should be "delete". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sources appear to be about the problem (which is thereby notable) not this particular solution. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is a direct copy from http://wcipeg.com/wiki/index.php?title=Longest_palindromic_substring , the current attribution is no way near enough and suggests only part of the source has been copied instead of the entire thing. We don't want to get in the habit of plagiarising entire articles from elsewhere, especially when it so unencyclopedic. If the subject is deemed notable then this entire article can be deleted and replaced by a stub.Polyamorph (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If I'm reading WP:COMPLIC correctly, then the license of the original article on Wcipeg.com is acceptable for reuse on Wikipedia. And I find four apparently relevant hits on Google Scholar (see [1]). Problems with the article should be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the topic is notable, the content of the article is an essay that reads like a badly written section of an undergraduate textbook. In case someone feels inspired to rewrite the article, consider including a reference to Jeuring's solution expressed in the functional programming paradigm ([2], [3]). --Lambiam 19:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]