Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cellular learning automaton

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 speedy delete by Maxim as a copyright violation (WP:CSD#G12). Housekeeping closure. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cellular learning automaton

Delete unsalvageably incoherent Mayalld (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 14:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: We assume that, there exists a neighborhood function ¯N(u) mapping a cell u to the set of its neighbors, that is ¯N(u) = (u+ ¯x1, u+ ¯x2, . . . , u+ ¯x ¯m). I hope you aren't a lip reader: if you are, you just summoned an invisible evil spirit, and are probably possessed by now. Seriously, articles about mathematical theories ought to have some sort of English text explaining their significance and providing context for non-mathematicians. It's uncertain whether this is about a mathematical theory or attempting to describe some sort of robot, especially since all I really have to go on is the title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like advertisment for someones line of research.PB666 ^yap 20:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not enthusiastic about this article, but Google scholar finds 46 research articles on the subject. Most of them are from a single lab and are poorly cited, though, so this may not be enough to show notability. Additionally, as the nominator states, the article is very poorly written, enough so that I can't really tell what's different between this and any other kind of cellular automaton. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment, ~~probably keep~~ Hmmm. this one was cited 27 thousand times. I have no access to its contents, so I don't know if it was a one line reference, a chapter, or a paragraph, but 27 thousand researchers think the guy who wrote it wasn't a nut. Someone should notify the appropriate projects and see if we can make sense of this. My guess is that there is at least enough for a stub. Protonk (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a book, probably mostly about something else, that happens to mention cellular learning automata somewhere within it. Or maybe that is even more peripherally connected; I searched for "cellular" within it in books.google.com and didn't get any hits I don't think you can judge from its citation count without actually reading it and determining how relevant to the article it actually is. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I think google hasn't indexed it (the link on google goes to the publisher's page). Of course the citation count doesn't speak to the depth of the reference. What I am saying is that the book appears to be an important work in the field (and bills itself as a textbook). Textbooks don't tend to include new or dubious material, so at least (at the very least), the text string "Cellular learning automaton" exists in that volume. The snippet provided in the scholar search link seems to suggest that it isn't an accidental text string hit (i.e. cellular. Learning automaton...). Protonk (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A note on readability. Usually, a WP:FRINGE subject is written in a deliberately obtuse fashion in order to deter amateur users from making claims about it. BUT by the same token, most of the communication within professions appears cryptic to outsiders. We've blocked the (only) author indefinitely for removing the AfD template multiple times but I'm sure some other user who knows something about the subject can comment on this. If not, I'm not too choked up at the prospect of deleting it. If the primary editor is indefinitely blocked, I can't imagine the article will improve considerably (without lots of outside help). Protonk (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It turns out that it is a copyvio of this in any case. Tagged as CSD G12 Mayalld (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like the web address of the principal author (doesn't mean we shouldn't speedy it, but just saying). Nuke it from orbit. Protonk (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2008 (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.