Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convergence acceleration by the Ford-Sidi W(m) 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 delete. Michig (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Convergence acceleration by the Ford-Sidi W(m) algorithm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As claimed in the article this is a "proposal" and so constitutes original research. Also not a sufficiently notable topic. The Ford-Sidi algorithm alone is not notable, and we don't list it at List_of_algorithms. It follows that this proposed direct application of the Ford-Sidi W(m) algorithm is not notable. Pontificalibus 08:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have rarely if ever come across another article with so many reasons for being unsuitable for Wikipedia. Here are just a few of the reasons. (1) The Ford-Sidi algorithm certainly appears to be notable, and the Ford-Sidi W(m) algorithm may or may not be the same thing (if not then it probably isn't notable: my Google search turned up only 6 hits); however, this is not an article about that algorithm: it is about an investigation by some unnamed person (referred to in the article as "we") into convergence of that algorithm. It is original research, with no evidence anywhere of having been published or mentioned anywhere else. There is no evidence of notability. (2) Even if the subject were notable, this article would be totally unsuitable, as it simply launches into the middle of its topic without providing any context or explanation of what it refers to, so that readers will not actually know what it is about. (3) It is written as a personal essay, in which someone (referred to in the article as "we") repeatedly "proposes" a particular method, which is to say advocates or promotes it, and also gives an account of why he/she/they think that method is good, i.e it expresses a point of view. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  GameInfirmary   Talk  21:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  GameInfirmary   Talk  21:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete it looks as if Sidi copied his latest paper to a Wikipedia article. No independent coverage; unreadable math jargon, excessive tables of raw data, etc., etc. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2018 (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.