Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extended Langton's ant

Extended Langton's ant

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

This impressive-looking but mostly-meaningless buzzword salad fails have you run the octave code? WP:NOR. Its only reference is to an article that defines the original (unextended) Langton's ant, which is name-dropped at the start of the article and then largely ignored. Except for that one brief mention of something else, the article is entirely unsourced and unsourceable. Past discussions have suggested redirecting or merging to the Langton's ant article, but there is nothing here of value to save and it would be a mistake to even mention this in the Langton's ant article. Delete this gobbledegook. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I may not understand something, but it looks like this article does not describe anything different than the original Langton's ant.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, just tacked on to Langton's ant to look good. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete as original research with nothing worth salvaging from it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not adding anything to Langton's ant and incomprehensible. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]