Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantelides algorithm

Pantelides algorithm

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

There is both little evidence of significance, and only the lead sentence might be appropriate in a good article about the subject. No reliable sources are provided other than [1], which provides partial evidence of existence, not of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article shouldn't be removed: the algorithm itself is one of the backbones of Modelica compilers and in the Modeling and simulation industry considered a breakthrough for component-based modeling. — User:rhodin, 7 December 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a plausible reason to keep the article, if there was anything in the article worth keeping. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is improved (introduction, better sources), you agree that it is worth keeping? I'll see what I can do through this weekend to improve the article. --Rhodin (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar shows 584 citations to the original publication of this algorithm, and 182 publications using the exact phrase "Pantelides algorithm", making it clearly notable. The fact that our current article is a stub in need of expansion is not a valid reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]