Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horn-satisfiability: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →[[Horn-satisfiability]]: xk |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Makes no sense. What's a horn clause? [[User:Poccil|[[User:Poccil|Peter O.]] ([[User Talk:Poccil|Talk]])]] 03:51, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC) |
Makes no sense. What's a horn clause? [[User:Poccil|[[User:Poccil|Peter O.]] ([[User Talk:Poccil|Talk]])]] 03:51, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC) |
||
*Try looking it up before VfDing it. It's a formal logic thing, named after logician Alfred Horn. Makes perfect sense within the context of formal logic. Of course, this could just be logicruft. But '''Keep'''. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]{[[User talk:Jpgordon|gab}]] 04:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
*Try looking it up before VfDing it. It's a formal logic thing, named after logician Alfred Horn. Makes perfect sense within the context of formal logic. Of course, this could just be logicruft. But '''Keep'''. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]{[[User talk:Jpgordon|gab}]] 04:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
||
* Extreme '''keep''', highly notable (could use some cleanup). This is precisely why I said in an early VfD listing that Peter O should kindly take a WikiVacation, or apply closer scrutiny before contributing an article to our already-massive VfD roster. This is not to say that some of his submissions have been fully qualified, but rather that others have been clearly invalid and not worthy of our time &mdash That is, unless you like to waste your time voting keep on completely legitimate articles. I have bigger fish to fry. Please do not interpret this as a personal attack; Peter's efforts appear to be in good faith and are appreciated. —[[User:Radman1|[[en:RaD Man|'''RaD Man''']] ([[User_talk:Radman1|''talk'']])]] 07:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 07:38, 1 December 2004
Makes no sense. What's a horn clause? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 03:51, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Try looking it up before VfDing it. It's a formal logic thing, named after logician Alfred Horn. Makes perfect sense within the context of formal logic. Of course, this could just be logicruft. But Keep. --jpgordon{gab} 04:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Extreme keep, highly notable (could use some cleanup). This is precisely why I said in an early VfD listing that Peter O should kindly take a WikiVacation, or apply closer scrutiny before contributing an article to our already-massive VfD roster. This is not to say that some of his submissions have been fully qualified, but rather that others have been clearly invalid and not worthy of our time &mdash That is, unless you like to waste your time voting keep on completely legitimate articles. I have bigger fish to fry. Please do not interpret this as a personal attack; Peter's efforts appear to be in good faith and are appreciated. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)