Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raita algorithm

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. After two relists, there was no consensus to Delete, but no strong consensus in any other direction; the AfD was not helped by a confusing nom with no clear rationale/direction of their own (and who did not participate further in the AfD post nom); no prejudice to a future re-list or possible Merge. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raita algorithm

[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)

The tuning only goes into the comparison loop, something already covered by BMH's inter-implementation variations. (I actually *had* to do it for BMH to account for the variations in implementations.) Artoria 2e5 🌉 11:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Artoria 2e5 🌉 11:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m not sure what the nominator means but I don’t see a delete rationale here. Mccapra (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the argument is that it's just a trivial variation on something else and doesn't deserve an article of its own. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Longer term maybe merge/redirect or maybe Wikibooks .. ie it sems credible alternatives to deletions exist, but we shouldn't persue them in in such a way to disrupt the target. If we can source and execute a non disruptive merge or target anchor area improvement+redirect(W History) with non disruptive mention and description of target then I'd be up for than but we are sort of relying on noms. opinion here (which I confess way well be correct).Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Boyer–Moore–Horspool algorithm. The information should not be deleted... there are quite a few peer-reviewed journals that mention the Raita algorithm. DavidDelaune (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2019 (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.