Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attribute sequence

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. — Aitias // discussion 01:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attribute sequence[edit]

No context given, no references, definition does not appear to match article title. ←Spidern → 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Without understanding of the context of this definition, it's very hard to see whether it's important or not. Unfortunately, the words "attribute" and "sequence" are commonly used together in certain applications, so it's very hard to find sources relating to this. However, in regards to the nominator's comment "definition does not appear to match article title" I note that the article contains two definitions, the first one is apparently a subordinate definition to allow the reader to understand the second one, which is of an "attribute sequence". It may be that this usage of the term is unique to the theorem prover linked in the 'see also' section, at which point a merge would be appropriate. But I see no easy way of finding out. JulesH (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - However, I suggest notifying the author if possible. They may be able to provide context. At the moment it isn't clear what this refers to. Is it used in mathematics, linguistics (not that I know of), or even economics or biology? Or what? Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the page creator upon starting the AfD. It was an IP editor, so I doubt we'll get a response. ←Spidern → 23:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--there is no meaning outside of context. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The context would appear to be supplied by the "see also" and external links - this is something that CARINE does. If CARINE is notable (which I very much doubt) then the article on it would seem to have enough room for this content, so merge. Otherwise delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this would appear to be somehow related to automated theorem proving, but provides absolutely no context whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless the author (or someone else) can provide a context to explain what the article is about. Anaxial (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2009 (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.