Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hung's adjustment


 * 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. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hung's adjustment

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Insufficient secondary coverage of this algorithm to warrant an article. I believe to this to be essentially original research, as there is no explicit reference to it in the secondary sources used. A member of WikiProject Computer Science has the same opinion - see here. There are also serious problems with the article in that it does not contain any explanation of the context, and uses jargon which is unfamiliar to most. Anthem of joy (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The main source of this theory is put in the reference, namely "Invention of segmentation algorithms based on BCFCM and segmentation application". You may refer to page 5 to 6 of the technical paper. This is a paper published by my PhD supervisor. The paper was published by the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering of the University of Hong Kong. This thesis has gained approval from the board of review of the university. This is a cross field research of Statistics, Applied Math and Computer science. The jargon used are common in the field of Fuzzy C means study. The most used jargon is the "bias estimation", you may refer wiki for this field. Cpkex0102 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpkex0102 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting the quality of the research, I simply do not believe that Hung's adjustment has received significant coverage in secondary sources. See WP:N. Anthem of joy (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The common criteria for scientific research here is significant coverage by peer-reviewed and third-party publications. I see neither here; the non-reviewed publication by the university clearly does not qualify! It is neither significant nor peer-reviewed nor independent, and the sole related publication apparently. --93.104.74.33 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No direct third party coverage at all and even the intro is almost entirely incomprehensible to those outside of the field. Doddy Wuid (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability, as none of the sources are reliable independent ones.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 01:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, and as a possible non-notable fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, original research. "Hung's Adjustment" not found any--Shizhao (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2011 (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.