Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talent scheduling


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Talent scheduling

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

This topic lacks notability in academia. The article is essentially based on two references, ref1: "Optimal scheduling in film production to minimize talent hold cost" ( Cited by 52), ref2 "Iterative local search methods for the talent scheduling problem" (Cited by 7). Both references are lacking citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 桃花影落飞神剑 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Mathematics,  and Computing.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is clearly a well-defined and specific problem, for which the sourcing is not great but is much stronger than the nomination statement claims. Google Scholar finds 141 hits for talent scheduling, 11 with it in the title, all of the titled ones looking relevant. As well as the 1993 reference already in the article, another early one is "A genetic algorithm for the talent scheduling problem", 1994. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This topic is just a problem setting in scheduling, not worth as an article. You can find over one hundred problem settings in this link https://www.csplib.org/Problems/ . This so-called "Talent scheduling" is just one (prob039	The Rehearsal Problem) among these over one hundred problem settings. Peach Blossom 01:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * CSPLib is for modelling problems as constraint satisfaction problems. Problems in the list can be notable (e.g. prob017 Ramsey numbers, prob054 N-Queens, and prob057 Killer Sudoku) or non-notable. I don't think inclusion in a list might possibly harm notability of a subject: either the list is a good source that helps establish notability, or the list is not good in which case it doesn't add anything to notability. –HTinC23 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources on the subject e.g. the review part of . High citation is not a WP:GNG requirement on the sources. It may be taken into account when judging reliability, but I don't think that is a problem with the sources here.–HTinC23 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 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.