Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damm algorithm

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 was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damm algorithm

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

Article contains ~~two~~one primary sources by the author of this article. Notability not asserted. PROD has been declined. A quick Google search reveals that Damm's work is being referenced by others, so that might already satisfy our minimum inclusion standards but I'll let others decide. Nageh (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the nominator that Damm's 2007 article is probably a distillation of part of his thesis, so a single primary reference. For secondary references, I've found three sources:

p. 305 of On Check Digit Systems, in the book Numbers, Information and Complexity [1]

p. 143 of Check character systems and anti-symmetric mappings in the book Computational Discrete Mathematics: Advanced Lectures [2]

page 5 of Check character systems over quasigroups and loops, Quasigroups and Related Systems, vol. 10 (2003), 1--28 [3]

These are all secondary independent sources; the first two only mention Damm's work in passing, but the third discusses his results in depth, with at least 13 citations of Damm's work. It is just above the threshold for keep in my view. The article's prose is well written, but has some non-neutral point of view issues in the Strengths and weaknesses section. If the consensus is (understandably) not keep, merging a subset to the check digit article might be a good alternative. Mark viking (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – IMO the Damm algorithm has merit of a type that makes it surprising that it has not made it to the mainstream yet, possibly explained by how recently it has been published. Because of this, my inclination would be "keep" even if the formal notability criteria (addressed by Mark viking above) were only marginally met. The article as written is a good reference on the algorithm (except that the source code is superfluous, and I toned down a POV remark), which is the purpose of WP. Merging the algorithm detail into another article such as check digit is not appropriate; if such a topic is notable enough to mention/reference, it should have an article of it own. — Quondum 07:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Damm algorithm is much easier to implement than others. The calculation of the check digit and the detection of errors are done in the same way. The article gives a good explanation of the algorithm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.232.81.127 (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this provides useful information and follows the same general form of the other checksum articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verhoeff_algorithm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhn_algorithm), and is already linked to from other articles in wikipedia. Davisnw (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm comfortable that the algorithm has been cited in enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Majoreditor (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2012 (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.