Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks-Iyengar 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   KEEP The noms rationale doesn't play out. Sources clearly show notability. As the for the technical nature of the subject or how the article is written, that's not a reason for deletion. Most of the articles in Category:Statistical algorithms are beyond comprehension by mere mortals. As for the COI issue. Not a reason for deletion. Mike Cline (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Appears to be an article on an obscure non-notable subject (which is also difficult to identify). No hits in GoogleScholar and a single hit in GoogleBooks. The article was created by User:Sitharama.iyengar1, so also seems to be a WP:COI case. In any event, fails WP:N, in my opinion. Nsk92 (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Nsk92 (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm an article in the relatively new field of Distributed Sensor Networks (DSN). DSNs have a wide range of real-time applications in aerospace, automation, battle field management, defense, medical imaging, home automation, robotics, and weather prediction.  On WP:N: The Brooks-Iyengar hybrid algorithm is notable because it bridges the gap between sensor fusion and Byzantine fault tolerance.  Perhaps its notability is relative next to lists of every single Pokemon.  But in the field of DSNs, it is notable.  I get many more hits with the word hybrid in the title.  This article needs a better introduction for the layperson, although the detail is good for a Systems Engineer such as myself to understand.  The major ideas need to be introduced.  Sensor fusion deals with combining the sensory data from multiple sensors and creating the equivalent of a more reliable sensor.  The Byzantine fault tolerance is a mechanism by which failing sensors or faulty network connections between sensors can be ignored.  I think the WP:COI issue is minimal and can be overlooked with other editors participating in the edit process.   kgrr  talk 15:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete; first of all, this isn't an encyclopedia entry, it does little to explain the topic to a general audience. This could only stay with a total rewrite. But on top of that, there are some severe COI and original research issues. Hairhorn (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article may be too technical for most readers to understand, but this is no reason to delete it. I think the initial edit by Dr. Iyengar was made in good faith.  I believe the COI and "original research issues" can be addressed with other authors being involved.    kgrr  talk 15:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that COI is a significant consideration to keep in mind, but, more importantly, I still do not see substantial verifiable evidence of notability of the topic. Nsk92 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The original paper, Richard R. Brooks and S. Sithrama Iyengar (Jun 1996). "Robust Distributed Computing and Sensing Algorithm". Computer (IEEE) 29 (6): pp. 53-60. doi:10.1109/2.507632. ISSN 0018-9162 is referred by at least two books and a half of a dozen peer-reviewed journal papers. Google Scholar search showing 50 references citing the paper  How many of these references do you need to establish notability?  Books and journal papers are certainly considered reliable sources.  If the paper is cited by other works and the paper is cited in several survey papers and at least two books covering sensor networks, then this satisfies the secondary source requirement.  The other works are independent of Richard R. Brooks and S. Sithrama Iyengar.  Tell me what all you need, I will look it all up for you.   kgrr  talk 07:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep; True, "it does little to explain the topic to a general audience", but this article is not intended for a general audience. The article is easily understandable to anyone with a computer science degree. --Dc987 (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal or a textbook. Hairhorn (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability has been shown. Certainly needs a popular science makeover but that's no reason to delete. --Pgallert (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment - I have added text to clear up the issues, but I'm not quite good enough to dumb it down to the point of a popular science makeover. Anyone that runs into the term will understand what the algorithm does. I have linked it into related articles. Etc.  Let me know what else the article needs in order to survive deletion by the Wikipedia Thinkpol.  kgrr  talk 16:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.