Forum:TC:Algorithm

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus, default to keep. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 17:25, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Algorithm (talk - history - links - logs)

Similar to Ambidexterity, we're not a dictionary. Nothing majorly different from reality.

Delete

1. <-Omicron^{(Leave a message at the BEEP!)} 22:13, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
2. —MJ— _Comlink Monday, April 9, 2012, 22:28 UTC

   I thought about nominating this one for deletion when I came across it before.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 22:30, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

3. Clone Commander Lee ^Talk 22:30, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
4. Jedi Algorithm is okay. This isn't. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 22:32, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
5. —Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 00:47, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
6. No purpose. Stake black ^msg 00:50, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
7. I rarely buy the "we're not a dictionary" argument, but I feel this is one instance where it holds water. Per Jugs. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:08, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
8. — DigiFluid 00:43, April 16, 2012 (UTC)
9. 1358 ^(Talk) 17:06, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Keep

1. I think the droid who came up with the algorithm is enough to keep it in IU territory. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 13:41, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
2. Not buying the "we're not a dictionary" argument. Not being a dictionary means we don't have articles on "run," "happy," "fast," "up," etc., but a noun such as "algorithm" finds its place in an encyclopedia perfectly fine to me, not to mention there are IU instances of its usage. Also, I always thought we strove to be as independent from Wikipedia as possible. I'd much rather they be able to research the topic here than send them to another site. Of course this has its limitations, but they are beyond "algorithm," IMO. MasterFred^(Whatever) 13:33, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
3. There's always the possibility that there is something unique about Star Wars algorithms in some resource somewhere that hasn't been included in the article yet. In any event, per Fred. DD97^{Which bear is best?} 21:20, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
   • Then the article can be recreated when that information is discovered. It's ludicrous to keep an article just because it's "possible" that there could be information out there that would warrant keeping it. If we did that, we'd never delete anything except pure vandalism and spam because there's always the theoretical possibility that this supposed fanon character that anon just created is actually from an obscure source that no one's ever heard of. To keep an article because of a theoretical possibility is the height of hyperinclusionism. —MJ— ^{Jedi Council Chambers} Sunday, April 22, 2012, 02:00 UTC
     • In ANY event, per Fred. DD97^{Which bear is best?} 03:20, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
4. Fred and Dangerdan have persuaded me.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 21:42, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
5. NaruHina ^Talk 20:58, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Comments