Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest palindromic substring Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Longest_palindromic_substring

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. Article is now encyclopedic after the rewrite. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longest palindromic substring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Question one: Is the licence "Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) " suitable for Wikipedia? Because the article is a one-on-one-copy from here. Question 2: is the subject clear and notable enough? It is a bit of a fuzzy subject and I can't make heads or tails out of it. About 8000 Google and zero GNews hits (for what it is worth) and 1 Google Scholar hit. Is this a keep or delete??? Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Is this a keep or delete???" Well, if you can't provide a deletion rationale based on a policy, then it can't be a delete. So Keep and close based on the fact the nominator doesn't make any arguements for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

aha, a technocrat who only want rules and policies and hates discussions. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rumbled. Lugnuts (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of there being no justification for that inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean toward Delete or transwiki to WikiVersity or WikiBooks. It's an article about an algorithm to solve a problem; the problem has some notability (although not justified in the article, itself), but the algorithm does not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't notice the nominator. In spite of the fact I don't agree with him about hardly anything, it still should be "delete". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep, per rewrite. It's now primarily about the problem and noting the existence of a linear-time solution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment sources appear to be about the problem (which is thereby notable) not this particular solution. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is a direct copy from http://wcipeg.comhttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/index.php?title=Longest_palindromic_substring , the current attribution is no way near enough and suggests only part of the source has been copied instead of the entire thing. We don't want to get in the habit of plagiarising entire articles from elsewhere, especially when it so unencyclopedic. If the subject is deemed notable then this entire article can be deleted and replaced by a stub.Polyamorph (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep after re-write. However, the article still incorporates word for word text from the original source and so an attribution is possibly still necessary for that.Polyamorph (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If I'm reading WP:COMPLIC correctly, then the license of the original article on Wcipeg.com is acceptable for reuse on Wikipedia. And I find four apparently relevant hits on Google Scholar (see [1]). Problems with the article should be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. While the topic is notable, the content of the article is an essay that reads like a badly written section of an undergraduate textbook. In case someone feels inspired to rewrite the article, consider including a reference to Jeuring's solution expressed in the functional programming paradigm ([2], [3]).  --Lambiam 19:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is the topic of multiple research articles and entire sections in two textbooks. I stubbed down the article to something that I hope is an improvement. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and thanks to David Eppstein. The 20 November version that was brought to AfD looks like a draft journal paper or essay (and I say "looks like", 'cause what do I know about math?), but the current version is a perfectly acceptable encyclopedia entry. The essay and sourcing problems are taken care of, though I guess I'll have to leave judgements about notability to people who know the field. Cnilep (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – encyclopedic as rewritten.  --Lambiam 06:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep —Ruud 20:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the rewrite. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest speedy closeure as keep I could make heads or tails from the original article. After the rewrite I more or less understand it (but the subject is far out of my comfort zone). The questions about the license are solved, so the answer on my question "keep or delete" had turned into a clear "keep"! Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:39, 25 November 2011 (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.