Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplex algorithm method

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 (or merge). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simplex algorithm method

Violates Wikipedia's 1st Pillar. Wikipedia isn't a howto manual or a medium to hold indiscriminate types of information Mecanismo | Talk 10:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good candidate for transwiki to wikibooks. ColourBurst 15:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikiversity or wikibooks, redirect to Simplex algorithm. A solid article, but in the wrong place. --Wafulz 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't tell me we don't have other articles that in effect step through algorithms. Can we not explain anything, for example arithmetic, defined in this way? Charles Matthews 16:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia is not a HowTo manual. There is already an article on the simplex algorithm, which gives a very good general explanation on the problem, including it's mathematical formulation. Therefore it is obvious that a second article, which the original author claims that was copied from a textbook, isn't justified. Moreover, Wikipedia isn't a howto manual. There are other wiki projects which are better suited for this kind of information --Mecanismo | Talk 17:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think simplex algorithm explains the details of the algorithm well. It only gives an overview of the algorithm, and I think that somebody who hasn't seen it before will find it impossible to follow the explanation. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• So why not expand and improve the already existing article? And if the reader really wants a HowTo document, why not consult other wiki-projects like wikibooks? As I see it, two separate articles is overkill for such a simple thing, specially if one of them is a HowTo manual (which doesn't belong in wikipedia) copied from a book. --Mecanismo | Talk 11:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Charles Matthews. Algorithms are frequently difficult to understand; this seems appropriate. Could use a better title, though. linas 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Maybe the article was greatly improved after the nomination? At any event, I don't see the problem. The simplex algorithm is without doubt one of the most important algorithms in all of applied mathematics, and has had a tremendous influence on the development of math/sci/engineering since it was introduced. It is completely appropriate to offer a clear step by step discussion. Please note that every undergraduate textbook on numerical methods which I have seen (and I have looked at dozens) contains a similar discussion. To name one of the most elementary such books: Kemeny et al., Finite Mathematical Structures, Prentice-Hall, 1959 (a fine book which unfortunately seems to be hard to obtain these days). (I could give more authoritative citations testifying to the outstanding importance of this algorithm, even specifically to the algorithm itself, but I trust that one will suffice.)---CH 18:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into simplex algorithm. I don't see the point of having an example of using the simplex algorithm anywhere other than the simplex algorithm article. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• transwiki per ColourBurst. This is an encyclopedia, not a textbook. Nevertheless, the existence of this implies that simplex algorithm could probably use an example, with explicitly subscripted coordinates. Septentrionalis 20:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I agree. Usually the textbooks on operations research approach the simplex algorithm twice. First the book explains the hands-on approach to the algorithm (to what the AfD serves as a howto) and then the book presents the algebraic approach (what is written in the article). I believe that the article would indeed benefit from having both approaches listed, which merits a merge. --Mecanismo | Talk 23:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge. Paul August ☎ 22:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge This is not "indiscriminate information". Obviously the simplex algorithm plays a prominent role in the history of the 20th century. The fact that this is not a how-to manual does not mean that at least some of its material should be "how-to" stuff, especially with such a prominent topic as this one. Michael Hardy 22:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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.