Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meida*


 * 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. No sources = no article.  Sandstein   17:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Meida*

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

&mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 20:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Reason?.--SkyWalker (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess, made in part with my Wikibooks editor hat on and in part as the person who performed the transwikifications to Wikibooks for a fair while, is that it would be something along the lines of "Wikibooks doesn't want this any more than you do.". Uncle G (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not sure what the nominator's intention was but I'd certainly say this is an incoherent article that barely establishes context, let alone notability. ~ mazca  t 23:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has been tidied up a bit so it's decipherable now, but I'm still struggling to find any real reference to it anywhere. Unless it's referenced (or someone at least points to some reasonable information about it elsewhere), i'm still going to suggest this fails requirements for verifiability and notability. The only relevant google hit I've found seems to be this article, although this is handicapped by all the misspellings of "media". ~ mazca  t 12:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * delete if there was a wp:incoherent indecipherable nonsense this would be its poster child.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — I'll ignore the rules on the fact that absolutely no reason is given behind the nomination; I will remind the nom to do so next time. Anyways, article clearly fails not a how-to and also lacks sufficient context; that is, if the man from Mars cannot figure out what this article is about in 10 seconds, it probably shouldn't be here. (Luckily, I barely beat that time and figured out that this is about complexity in queues in computer programming.) MuZemike  ( talk ) 03:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This appears to be about a combination of Iterative deepening depth-first search and A* search algorithm. IDA* is reasonably important but this variant is starting to get a bit specialized. We don't have an article on IDA* itself, though — that should come first. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep. Now that David Eppstein added more context to the article, the deletion comments above are no longer applicable. This is an article about an algorithm, which are generally legitimate topics. I cannot comment on notability, though, but if not too notable it could at some point be merged somewhere. --Itub (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability can only come from independent reliable sources and there are still none for this article. xschm (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2008 (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.