Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algorithm examples

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 Delete. Michig (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Algorithm examples

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

This article is a mess, and it's hard to see what topic it could cover that would make it worth trying to rescue it. It is the work of one editor, quite idiosyncratic. It is currently subject of a WP:RM with unspecified new name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried prodding it a few months ago with the rationale "This article has no clear topic (the title is very vague), and reads less like an encyclopedia article and more like an excerpt from an introductory theory of computing textbook. Even a complete rewrite wouldn't save it, because what would the rewrite be about?" It was unprodded, but I think the same issues remain valid. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, then merge A related discussion has started at Talk:Algorithm examples#Requested move. At first glance, I agreed with Dicklyon and David that the article has no clear topic. However, the topic of the article would be clearer if it would be renamed Examples of abstract machines. I would agree with deletion if the two related articles, Abstract machine and Model of computation would not be stubs deserving a large expansion. After looking at these two articles, my suggestion is rather to merge the three articles. In any case, as some parts of Algorithm examples could be very useful for a section Examples in Abstract machine, it would be counterproductive to make them unavailable by deleting the article. D.Lazard (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly disagree with merging Abstract machine and Model of computation, since the latter includes e.g. lambda calculus and μ-recursive functions, which are not machines, while the former includes e.g. the SECD machine and Warren Abstract Machine, which are not primarily intended as models of computation. -- 101.117.90.93 (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. It seems like WP:SYNTH (an unpublished paper, perhaps), of mostly good quality, but containing a number of unsupported value judgements about what is "better." -- 101.117.90.93 (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the idea of having some worked out algorithm examples isn't bad but I don't think this article qualifies. What I was expecting was examples of searching, sorting, etc. So to me the question is, does this article at least represent a start, something that could be reworked to be such an article without the OR and with better references? And my opinion is no, that by the time you reworked the current article there would be nothing left but the title anyway. The current article contains too much unencyclopedic language such as "The Turing machine model is primitive, but not as primitive as it can be. " according to who and compared to what? Or "Atomization comes at a (usually severe) cost". So much of the article is written that way that I don't think it can be reasonably salvaged. Regarding the suggestion to merge with abstract machine I think the same criticism applies, the language of this article is so value laden I don't think there would be much that could really be cogently merged. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is unclear what the topic of the article actually is, and it does not seem worthwhile to attempt inventing a topic and shoehorning the content into it Some editors have already made valiant efforts to do just that, with mixed results. I would not be averse to content being farmed out to other articles as seems appropriate, but we should not leave lying around an incoherent mess without a clear topic while we wait for such a merge to happen, and it does not seem like this discussion will engender a solid consensus on how such a possibly complicated merge should proceed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2014 (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.