Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shifting nth 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Shifting nth root algorithm

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Has never been sourced since its creation over 20 years ago. Appears to be original research. Better (but still not great) coverage of computation of roots is at our main article nth root. My prod saying all this was removed as the only edit by a new editor without improvement, and with the only rationale being WP:ITSUSEFUL. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Yep, looks like OR. And explained rather opaquely, at that. (Opaqueness isn't itself a reason for deletion, of course, but in this case, I think it does point to a lack of interest in improving the page.) Wikipedia is not a repository of stuff somebody noticed about basic arithmetic one day. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a bit unclear, but it looks like it may be a different derivation of the algorithm described in Methods_of_computing_square_roots. That's a well-known algorithm - e.g. it's described in Hacker's Delight and First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC, and I've seen it suggested that it originated as an abacus technique. Adam Sampson (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nth root computation algorithms are certainly an area of study (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). My question is more or less whether this shifting algorithm is part of that area of study that's been covered, and frankly my insufficient mathematical competence is hampering me in completing a source search. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 18:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: Listings in a Stack Exchange post and Wikiversity are what I'm able to pull up for sourcing... I'm not sure this is properly sourced, but it's too long to be made up. I don't see how we can keep this without some specialist mathematical sourcing, which I can't find. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, original research and not well explained. Athel cb (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2024 (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.