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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Binarization of consensus partition matrices[edit]

[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)

fails notability check, WP:SELFCITE. See also: sister article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clust on the new python implementation. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to keep wikipedia free of spam and biased self-promotions. However Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clust is not a new python implementation but a new method despite a link between them. I assume (hope) assumptions are done on articles after investigating references for fair judgement. Basel1988 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is so opaque it is about as far as one can get from an encyclopaedia article for a general readership. Even putting aside questions of notability and COI raised in the nomination, this still fails WP:NOTJOURNAL, particularly points #7 and #8. SpinningSpark 23:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTJOURNAL. Much to technical and looks to just be a showcase for the journal article that proposed it without appropriate secondary coverage. If it ever gains attention in the academic community to satisfy GNG, those sources will put it in more encyclopedic terms for us anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:21, 19 November 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.