Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RegularChains

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 delete. Sandstein 10:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RegularChains

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article based on a single primary source authored by the creator of the article (WP:COI). No secondary source. No indication of notability. Moreover it is nothing else than description of the features of a specific implementation. This is thus not an encyclopedic content. D.Lazard (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete academic spam. Content for their faculty or lab webpage, not WP. Jytdog (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page is written in a style of a manual, which means that it is too technical (WP:TECHNICAL) for readers to understand. The article does not cite any source so it maybe a crafted by the creator (User:M.Moreno-Maza). Article may already be explained in this page Venomous Sniper (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. PlotHelpful (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of in-depth secondary sources about this package putting it into context with other software for the same topic. Even with such sources, most or all of the present text would have to be removed or rewritten, so WP:TNT is in play as well. I'm not a big fan of WP:NOTHOWTO in general, but this seems to be a prime case where that part of policy is justified. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, Fails reliable sources.Alex-h (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2018 (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.