Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VList


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

VList

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Two problems:
 * The first one, more formal as far as wikipedia is concerned: there is a lack of notability. There is a single source: the article which introduces VList.
 * And the real problem I have with this page, the article is not very convincing. As stated in february by in the discussion page, this article is a work in progress. And most statement given in the wikipedia article comes from the original article. But, contrary to what is usually done in algoritmhic science, the original author did not prove what it states. He only  stated that, with his test, it works. Without even giving the details of its test. Those tests are not replicated by other scientist, contrary to what science usually ask for. And those facts are not even stated on the wikipedia pages, which is written as if everything is effectively true without any doubt. Arthur MILCHIOR (talk)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG  Joel.Miles925  17:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - although not every subject needs notoriety, it does need notability. Someone besides the one promoting the subject in particular. W Nowicki (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My fault, I meant notability and not notoriety. (Even if I must confess my english is not good enough to understand the distinction between those words) Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are a number of implementations of this algorithm, but those don't prove notability. I can't find any coverage of this specific algorithm, so I guess it fails WP:GNG. (Shame, too - it looks like a great algorithm.) Enterprisey (talk!) 22:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * it look likes if you believe what the paper states. But you can easily find an example of a sequence of operation which generates a state where random access time is linear and not constant: add 2 elements, remove 1, repeat. Indeed, this algorithm would create a new array each time. Note however that, on wikipedia standard, as far as I know, the previous statement is original research.


 * 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.