Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CheiRank
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CheiRank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. The only reliable sources about the subject seem to be preprints by Shepelyansky D.L. and his coauthors - authors of the algorithm, so they're not independent sources.
Previously PROD'ed, but the author removed proposed deletion template himself. Some prior discussion is at Talk:CheiRank. X7q (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it's definitely an obscure topic, but so what? It's been discussed in two peer-reviewed papers and the fact that they're by the primary author of the article is basically irrelevant. To my eyes, X7q looks to be acting a bit overzealous w.r.t. accusing Shepelyanski of self-promotion. TiC (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2011 (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.