Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tango tree Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tango_tree

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. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tango tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This feels to me very much like original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's a relatively recent data structure introduced in 2004. It has had some coverage at algorithm conferences: [1], [2]. It's included in a Princeton Algorithm Design course. So it isn't original research in the sense that this is some idea thought up by the original creator of the article. It is a data structure known to those doing research in search algorithms. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Same rationale as User:Whpq. Recent does not mean original research (see for example current event articles); work on Tango Trees has been published (heck even cited in the article) many times. This tag is completely unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjagecko (talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. As User:Whpq has shown, there is real evidence of notability and I don't think we should delete articles on notable topics because they currently contain OR. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:15, 18 May 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.