Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floyd's Triangle

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 - Philippe | Talk 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Floyd's Triangle

Floyd's Triangle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable triangle. :-) But seriously, trivial construct that is not commonly known under that name. The article consists mostly of Java and C++ code of no interest whatsoever. Claims of "subtle patterns" are probably intended as a joke. Pichpich (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Uninteresting, unencyclopedic, and unreferenced. I would have tried a prod first, but going straight to AfD is more reliable I suppose. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Paul August ☎ 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Itub's sources. Paul August ☎ 03:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Salix alba (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Itub's book references seem to establish notability.--Salix alba (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Well, yes, this is a pretty feeble article, and it could certainly use propping up. The topic, though, is legitimate. I quickly found about a half-dozen different mentions of "Floyd's Triangle" via Google, not counting quite a few requests for the proper method of programming it in one or another language. I failed to find any mention, though, of its origin as a test of programming skill or even the source of the name. The real value of the article consists of the two bits of program language, information in some demand. Let's keep it and hope for future improvement. If the triangle is better known under some other name, as Pichpich may imply, above, then that needs to be taken into consideration: change the article's name, or merge as appropriate. Tim Ross·^talk 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you'll be hard-pressed to find mentions of it via Google which are not internet forums where some lazy student asks for the code to do his assignment. An article is not legitimate just because someone teaching some first-year programming course asked this in assignment 1. Note that my Google search returns 50 unique hits, including a number of Wikipedia mirrors. There is simply nothing to say about such a trivial construct and that would actually explain why it probably doesn't have any universal name. Pichpich (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see that anyone has quoted that Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide; so I will. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete At the moment, non-notable and unsourced. If anyone can find and add any reliable sources that verify the name and demonstrate notability then I may reconsider my vote. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - changed vote after reviewing Itub's sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There are a dozen books mentioning it in Google books.[1], [2] Given the simplicity of the triangle, I don't expect it to become a huge article. Nevertheless, it seems to me a legitimately notable topic worth explaining in Wikipedia. --Itub (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC) BTW, in case anyone's interested, the triangle is named after Robert Floyd, a notable computer scientist (in case anyone thought it was a high school kid named Floyd who invented it last year). --Itub (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Robert Floyd. Simplifies and places in context. Needs inline sources and thorough NPOV scrubbing. In general, info is good though, it just doesn't belong here in such context. `— BQZip01 — ^talk 03:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect the definition to Robert Floyd (the cookbook Java code can remain in the answers section of freshman CS textbooks, I suppose). It must be a bit embarrassing to have left one's name to something like this, but the subject matter is too unsubtantial to warrant an encyclopedia article of its own. Bikasuishin (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2008 (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.