Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Constraint Language: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:29, 8 June 2011

Natural Constraint Language

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

No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. A search suggests independent sources may not exist. The only contributors to the article are WP:SPAs. Msnicki (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

Comment. Both this article and the companion article Mixed Set Programming (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixed Set Programming) seem to be referenced entirely to the work of one "J. Zhou". They seem to be on highly technical subjects, but the style seems generally informative; they don't read like typical WP:COI text. If they're meant to promote something, I'm so far outside the target market that I didn't notice. No opinion yet on whether this should be kept or deleted. If one is kept, I suspect the other could be merged into it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly highly technical. But generally informative is another matter. I think I know enough about programming languages and compilers and what an NP-hard problem is that if an article on one these topics has been written WP:NOT#JARGON "for everyday readers, not for academics" that after reading it, I should be able guess what it's about. But I have no idea what this thing is or what it does. This article told me nothing. Do you write programs in this language and do they get compiled and run? What do they do? Who can tell. I'm guessing it's yet another academic (in this case a researcher at Microsoft) self-promoting his little-known work. WP:NOT PAPERS, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:INDISCRIMINATE Msnicki (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to take a bit more out of it. (I must be a very clever fellow!) I gathered that this theory or research had to do with solving complex problems involving constraints (how do I paint the map with a limited palette, so that no border has the same color on either side? What's the best way from here to the zoo, avoiding traffic jams, stop lights, and extra miles, with each factor weighted?) These problems are mathematically hard, from what I'm told. Solving them is one of the few things humans usually do better with than computers. I don't know enough about the field to suggest a merger subject, but I did want to point out that this seems to be well written technical material of the sort we ought to save somehow if possible. The two articles do seem to be mergeable, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 15:22, 8 June 2011 edit Msnicki (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 10,358 edits →Natural Constraint Language: r ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:29, 8 June 2011 edit undo Ihcoyc (talk \| contribs) 30,401 edits →Natural Constraint Language: comment\ Next edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:

	::It's certainly ''highly technical''. But ''generally informative'' is another matter. I think I know enough about programming languages and compilers and what an NP-hard problem is that if an article on one these topics has been written [[WP:NOT#JARGON]] ''"for everyday readers, not for academics"'' that after reading it, I should be able guess what it's about. But I have no idea what this thing is or what it does. This article told me nothing. Do you write programs in this language and do they get compiled and run? What do they do? Who can tell. I'm guessing it's yet another academic (in this case a researcher at Microsoft) self-promoting his little-known work. [[WP:NOT PAPERS]], [[WP:NOTPROMOTION]], [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] [[User:Msnicki\|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki\|talk]]) 15:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)		::It's certainly ''highly technical''. But ''generally informative'' is another matter. I think I know enough about programming languages and compilers and what an NP-hard problem is that if an article on one these topics has been written [[WP:NOT#JARGON]] ''"for everyday readers, not for academics"'' that after reading it, I should be able guess what it's about. But I have no idea what this thing is or what it does. This article told me nothing. Do you write programs in this language and do they get compiled and run? What do they do? Who can tell. I'm guessing it's yet another academic (in this case a researcher at Microsoft) self-promoting his little-known work. [[WP:NOT PAPERS]], [[WP:NOTPROMOTION]], [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] [[User:Msnicki\|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki\|talk]]) 15:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
			:::I was able to take a ''bit'' more out of it. (I must be a very clever fellow!) I gathered that this theory or research had to do with solving complex problems involving constraints (how do I paint the map with a limited palette, so that no border has the same color on either side? What's the best way from here to the zoo, avoiding traffic jams, stop lights, and extra miles, with each factor weighted?) These problems are mathematically hard, from what I'm told. Solving them is one of the few things humans usually do better with than computers. I don't know enough about the field to suggest a merger subject, but I did want to point out that this seems to be well written technical material of the sort we ought to save somehow if possible. The two articles do seem to be mergeable, though. - [[User:Ihcoyc\|Smerdis of Tlön]] - [[User talk:Ihcoyc\|killing the human spirit since 2003!]] 20:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)