Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collinear gradients method

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. ✗plicit 14:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collinear gradients method

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable variant of Newtons method based upon a single primary source which has only a self-cite, created by a new editor. There are hundreds (thousands) of variants, only the main ones used in major codes and well cited merit inclusion; Wikipedia is not an optimization dictionary or how-to guide.

Draft:Collinear gradients method was declined at AfC by KylieTastic on December 29th. Author then copy-pasted it directly into main. Originator ignored WP:NPP notability etc comments, continuing to make minor expansions. Since original editor has contested AfC, it seems that draftification or PROD are inappropriate so straight to AfD. (N.B., possible COI of editor being author of the single source.) Ldm1954 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Mathematics. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, (1) individual detailed algorithms aren't wikipedia-notable based on a single primary reference; they need to be widely-used and discussed in secondary sources before they are appropriate subjects. So it's WP:TOOSOON at least. (2) we have a duty to our readers to write our articles in the style of an encyclopaedia, not in the style of a primary maths publication. The article is currently written in a way that gives no context, and is incomprehensible to anyone who isn't already a subject-expert. Elemimele (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a reference article, not an encyclopedia. CalculatorOpt (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on a research paper cited only once by its own author. Setting aside the poor expository style, which could plausibly be fixed, this does not pass WP:GNG, which requires multiple in-depth independent (and preferably secondary) sources, such as textbook chapters about this method. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second source is software for demonstrating the method's features and comparing its effectiveness with many well-known methods. CalculatorOpt (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, fails WP:GNG. I removed the second source to the rar with complied code that could be any malicious software. KylieTastic (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for falling very short of our standards about when a topic is article-worthy. XOR'easter (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2025 (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.