Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ndoiskas 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. --Core desat 06:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ndoiskas Algorithm

Tagged {{db-nonsense}}, but it is clearly not nonsense. I am not qualified to determine whether anything here constitutes an assertion of notability, so listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 07:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now. Once anyone can prove this even exists, I will at least re-consider. Zero Ghits for Ndoiska, Ndoiskas, Ndöiska, and Ndöiskas. Perhaps the spelling was horribly butchered when the article was being created, but this needs to be determined quickly if such was the case. --Czj 07:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. How is it a greedy algorithm if it just ends up listing all possible paths? The order that you list them in does not affect the efficiency at all. Other than that, it describes the basic intuitive algorithm to go about solving the problem, and the problem itself is obscure enough that I don't believe this algorithm would have a special name that cannot be found anywhere else. Pomte 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:NFT. I think this page was created by a young computer science student named Ndoiskas. The (not really described) algorithm is the same as the classic depth-first search except that it takes the unnecessary step of accumulating all of the paths (there could be exponentially many) before choosing the shortest. Therefore it is can't really be "extremely useful for small graphs." — brighterorange (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 23:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not nonsense: one can list all non-repeating paths via a simple backtracking process. And less-blind path listing algorithms (e.g. that list paths in order by length) can be useful in circumstances when one wants to optimize something more complicated than a simple sum of edge lengths. However I don't see the point in describing bad algorithms and I get zero hits for Ndoiska or Ndoiskas in both Google and Google Scholar so the name appears to be either a neologism or an unintelligible misspelling. —David Eppstein 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Delete as unverifiable original research. Scob e ll302 02:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequately referenced. WMMartin 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.