Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core-based trees

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 of the debate was keep. Kudos to Jonathan de Boyne Pollard for yet another great rewrite. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 17:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Core-based trees[edit]

Delete yet more nonsense from User:Chris04 (see Scottish hell). Hu 02:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (see retraction below).[reply]

Note: The article has been entirely rewritten; this was the state of the article at the time of nomination.

Delete I'd still prefer to speedy this. It's part of a pattern of complete bollocks. Durova 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Keep per rewrite. Thanks for the fine work. Durova 09:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment I'll reverse my vote if someone who knows the subject turns this into an actual stub. Thanks to Uncle G the user talk page has enough links for reference and citations. Durova 05:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I posted my research on the talk page to this article. Durova 03:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Formally, this article is original research, and possibly hoax vandalism. Informally, this article is, as it stands, complete and utter tripe. The formula that purports to show the probability of "rejection" of computer viruses based upon Planck's constant, and the idea of dismantling a computer virus "for the sap it provides", are both total rubbish. Durova has identified what core-based trees actually are. For sources that verify this, see the references at Talk:Core-based trees. I suggest that Durova, or anyone else willing, perform a quick rewrite, based upon the sources given on the talk page, and turn this into a {{compu-network-stub}}. Uncle G 04:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Complete Rewrite. If not rewritten, delete. The way the article is now is drivel. The few things it asserts coherently are ridiculous and wrong. Reyk 06:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure this bit of jargon is worthy of a stand-alone article — even the alleged real definition seems unintelligible to non-specialists. At any rate, this present gibberish will not help anyone write a valid article. Smerdis of Tlön 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep rewritten version. I still wonder whether we need notability and intelligibility guidelines for math and computing topics, but we have plenty of similar articles. Smerdis of Tlön 12:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the article is complete and utter junk, it is not worth rewriting. Any writer would have to start from scratch. It is better to scrap it entirely until an able and willing writer arrives to write a proper article. Until then Wikipedia can manage just fine without it since the only link to it is a disambiguation page for the three letter acronym CBT. Hu 18:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rewritten article. Day for night. R. S. Shaw 04:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting due to rewrite: The rewrite from scratch is a good beginning and we should now Keep the article. Hu 19:11, 18 December 2005 (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.