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. Kurykh (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Computational Graph

[edit]

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

As discussed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Computational_Graph the very general definition of computational graph given here doesn't match the ones given in any of the sources. The author of this page seems to have created it to explore the concept as they and other people in this Hacker News here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13607634 see it. It is also described as a nascent field even though there's no evidence to suggest this, and plenty against (eg automata theory is ancient in Computer Science terms). In conclusion this article is inaccurate and misleading and I stand by the reasoning given in my original request for speedy deletion: the definition given here is something "just made up one day" in a Hacker News thread and then citations have been added retrospectively, rather than starting from a commonly accepted definition and working from that. Megajuice (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every combination of two words does not merit a Wikipedia article until it meets the notability guidelines, even if you can find one set of slides with it as a title. Certainly if it was, in fact, "nascent" then it would be WP:TOOSOON. But as above, it might also be talking about the general concept, in which case it would not have the second word capitalized. W Nowicki (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2017 (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.