Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary Independence Model
Appearance
- 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 Procedural close.
WP:CP. If there is something else to this, a nomination with a clear rationale is required. SpinningSpark 03:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
]
- @Spinningspark: Oops sorry. I was intending to delete it after the rest of the procedure, but the situation looked complicated, so at 05:56, 5 January 2019 during the deletion procedure I changed my mind and decided to get it discussed at AfD. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Binary Independence Model
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Binary Independence Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Riclas, DESiegel, and Gaspanic99: Queried speedy delete as copyvio of https://nlp.stanford.edu/IR-book/html/htmledition/the-binary-independence-model-1.html Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Messages copied from Talk:Binary Independence Model
|
---|
thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riclas (talk • contribs) 06:59, 28 January 2010
|
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Huh? @WP:CSD doesn't have any information about queries. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)]
- @Riclas, DESiegel, Gaspanic99, and Deacon Vorbis: At 05:55, 5 January 2019 I deleted Binary Independence Model because at 00:57, 5 January 2019 User:Gaspanic99 speedy-delete-tagged it as copyright violation.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: I've posted a request for assistance at ]
- Speedy close unless Anthony Appleyard actually answers Deacon Vorbis's question and provides a clearly stated deletion rationale. And JJMC89, can you clearly explain why you appear to think being at AfD makes this immune to copyvio-based speedy deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs) 00:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- The deletion reason would be ]
- So let's see if I understand. The article was closely paraphrased, but that was fixed by a rewrite as determined by Ged UK. After that, it was tagged for CSD twice more, and brought to AfD, with a confusing pile of copied talk page comments, because why? Out of inertia, or is there something we are still supposed to be deciding here? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein and Deacon Vorbis: The situation looked complicated, so at 05:56, 5 January 2019 I changed my mind and decided to get it discussed at AfD. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- The deletion reason would be ]
- 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.