Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Near Root 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Near Root Algorithm

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

Not notable - unable to find coverage in reliable sources. Probable vanity article. Cybercobra (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unreferenced. Google Web returns zero results for "Near Root Algorithm" -wiki. — Rankiri (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to be original research. I found nothing in Google scholar. We have coverage of similar material already at Integer square root, but there seems to be nothing useful to merge into that article from here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OR confirmation (albeit well-intentioned). --Cyber cobra (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Indeed looks like original research, I am also not familiar with the inventor (Nick Dietz). Materialscientist (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete C++ program to implement standard algorithm with poorly thought out implementation (what happens if the argument is negative? what if the last digit of the floating point fluctuates (unlikely but not impossible, since it depends on the implemenation of floating point division)?) We are not a how-to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Speedy merge Delete Isn't this just the same as the Babylonian method? --DanielPharos (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What's so speedy about it? And you can't just merge unreferenced original research into another article. — Rankiri (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, hang on, now I see! The first part of the article is talking about the Babylonian method, but the second part (the main part of the article) isn't. Oops. Just ignore me ;)
 * I can also verify that this has to be original research: it's useless. In order to approximate a square root, he has to calculate square roots, which kinda defeats the purpose of it all. Look at the conditions of the sums: they contain square roots! He's looking for a close 'square root', and using that to prime the iteration. Of course that works, but it totally defeats the purpose! --DanielPharos (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2009 (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.