Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batterley Algorythm

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 per WP:CSD#G7 (only one author contributed substantially to the article and that author has requested here that it be deleted). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Batterley Algorythm

Batterley Algorythm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

• Delete - From the author: Just delete this article. The relevance of the comments within here I find either self serving (viz David Eppstien's self serving wikipedia entry and reference to David Eppstein's blog) or debasing for no good reason.

The article was included in good faith, and we politely asked Batterley's permission to publish the algorithm (rather than it be lost to commerse alone).

We agree that peer review is important, however don't kid yourself on that one. Journal's are equally as competitive by default, and quite frankly the algorithm stands up on it's own merit.

Just delete the article. Thanks.

Viev (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Thank you for your comments, Mr Epstein. You had nothing to offer useful. It's the author's right to request deletion of the article. For the benefit of anyone so interested, if RHaworth may interpret chronology in one way, who is Epstein to interpret it differently? Who is Epstein?

• Delete - no Ghits, even with the proper spelling of "algorithm", OR  – ukexpat (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - The article author likely knows or is the inventor of the algorithm, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish research. Once the algorithm has been published in some peer reviewed journals, the article might be re-created. --Minimaki (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary to this edit is tanatmount to an admission that this is original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Erlang C entry in Wikipedia has no references and has no cited published source that I can see. Erlang C was the result of commercial personal research. It doesn't matter that the creator of an algorythm is alive or dead (like Erlang). To confirm, the author does know the creator of the algorithm. That does not diminish the importance of Batterley's work.

The author did not create the algorithm. In fact it took 5 years to divest the information from Batterley.

You are not suitably qualified to make judgement on the effectiveness of the algorithm unless you belong to the fraternity of mathematicians and schedulers whose job it is to perform very large calculations on a weekly basis in order to save money for the company you work for. The algorithm is put here for prosperity and so that it may not be forgotten.

Erlang used his formula in business. Is it possible that we are being hypercritical and too judgemental in wanting to remove this article?

Or is it that we should remove the Erlang C reference as the output of private research? Viev (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC) — Viev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - From the author: Just delete this article. The relevance of the comments within here I find either self serving (viz David Eppstien's self serving wikipedia entry and reference to David Eppstein's blog) or debasing for no good reason.

The article was included in good faith, and we politely asked Batterley's permission to publish the algorithm (rather than it be lost to commerse alone).

We agree that peer review is important, however don't kid yourself on that one. Journal's are equally as competitive by default, and quite frankly the algorithm stands up on it's own merit.

Just delete the article. Thanks. Viev (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. In case anyone else is wondering why my name is mentioned here, as I haven't expressed an actual opinion on the AfD: I did some minor editing, including, among other things, putting the comments back into chronological order after Viev shuffled them. Apparently this was not appreciated. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2008 (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.