Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rybicki Press 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Rybicki Press algorithm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not sure if this is significant, but if it is, it needs far more information and references. As the article is, it seems a good fit for deletion. &#124; Nayptatalk opened his mouth at 16:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. I added what appears to be the original source for this, a paper by Rybicki and Press (obviously they don't give the algorithm the name it has here). Their paper has 44 citations in Google scholar, possibly enough for notability, but other than a recent arXiv preprint generalizing this method (not yet published and therefore not yet reliable) I didn't find much in the way of nontrivial coverage in secondary sources. If this is kept, it should be moved to Rybicki–Press algorithm. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Question: How significant were the citations? Bearian (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  13:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article fails to describe why the equation might be notable nor provides any references that support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - although I can see citations to the research, what I cannot find is anything indicating that this algorithm is particularly significant or important. Mathematicians who are interested in linear algebra might find it interesting, but that does not mean it is notable, as defined by Wikipedia.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I've expanded the article a little bit with a couple of citations with an eye toward putting the article topic in context ... albeit I am a biologist/informatician and not a mathematician/astrophysicist. I am thinking this is one of a small number of algorithms used currently in periodic phenomenon detection in astronomy ... one application of such detection being identification of extra solar planets (though I added no citations related to this use). --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to be discussed in the academic literature as identified above. Not understanding it or why it's important isn't itself a criterion for deletion.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:00, 25 July 2015 (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.