Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santanen algorithm

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. Mz7 (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Santanen algorithm[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax. The article has seven footnotes but only one of them supports the main content of the article; the rest are background. The one source for the content (Santanen 2002) does not appear to actually exist: the DOI is broken, Google Scholar does not know about it, and DBLP, which would normally list publications and researchers in this area, has no record of an R. Santanen (instead it knows only of unrelated researchers Jukka-Pekka Santanen and Eric L. Santanen). MathSciNet also does not list R. Santanen as an author. The phrase "Santanen algorithm" does not appear in Google scholar. The journal's table of contents for that year and page number range [1] do not list any such paper and list two other papers whose page numbers overlap the given page range. The claim that the main application of this algorithm is to pack people into a sauna is also highly suspicious. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. ISBN number for Santanen 2002 also in error and article creator removed a PROD by claiming notability due to a mention in another article that he placed there himself. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it isn't a hoax, this is a cute problem (how to pack people into a sauna!); but without secondary discussion of it and its solution, it doesn't satisfy GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly because I have complete faith in D.E. on such subjects, but I did take a quick stab at similar searches to what he describes doing, and came up with the same result: nothing. E Eng 19:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did my own search and found nothing on Google books, either. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:09, 7 March 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.