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. Article is simply not comprehensible. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple prioritization[edit]

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

Article does not even explain what "Simple prioritization" is, and lacks sources that explicit mention "Simple prioritization", so it's impossible to assess notability. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself borders on WP:NONSENSE. Most of the sentences are fragments and two of the links that would presumably give context are red. Jergling (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2016 (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.