Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post–Turing machine

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 keep. Needs work but consensus to keep. Tone 17:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post–Turing machine

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article reads more like a research paper than an encyclopedia. Extensive clean-up is required to save this article.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP and WP:MANYLINKS because the article has 253 items linking to it (in all namesapaces) and 220 of those are from articles. Also, the content of the article is included on a non-media-wiki wiki with the statement "This article's content derived from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia (See original source)," found at this Infogalatic article. I noticed that the nominator tagged the article with the "advert" template (I agree that it reads like a research paper, but I have found no promotional material within the article), and 3 minutes later made this deletion request. The article definitely needs extensive cleanup for tone, but this can't happen if the article is deleted. I feel like applying the "research paper" template and giving contributors time to make the edits would be far more appropriate. I also noticed that the creator of the article wasn't notified about the deletion nomination, so I will be doing that shortly. Thanks, KnowledgeablePersona (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking at any other issues yet, I'll say that it's only 211 links once redirects and non-mainspace are eliminated, and most of those are from a navbox template. A search for insource:"Post–Turing machine" in mainspace reveals 29 matches (this matches hyphens too), some of which are simply "See also"-type links, so it's really a much more modest total than you're claiming. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying the author of the article. My apologies!Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Turing machine. This doesn't seem to be a term that's in use (at best I found some lecture notes; Google Scholar gives zero). The history of the Turing machine is somewhat convoluted, including improvements from Post, which seems to be the gist of what's here, so maybe it's a WP:POVFORK in order to try to include Post's name in what's typically just called a "Turing machine" to give him more credit. But what's here is overly technical and goes well into WP:OR territory. In any case, what's here cannot stay. I wouldn't really be opposed to a delete either, but in case there's anything in here worth saving/merging, I wouldn't mind skipping that part. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim down. Much of the examples section is unreferenced. There seems to be a fair number of references to this work and some people have used this model for their work. Turing machine is already enough and trying to merge it in there would lose some of the history. It does seem to get mentioned quite a bit for example a recent monograph Computability Theory, Karl-Heinz Zimmermann. --Salix alba (talk): 16:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I searched in JSTOR and MIT Journals and found things I think are sources, I'm not sure how common the name is, but there are sources that connect Post and Turing. Until someone who is a lot smarter than myself says it should be deleted, I think there is enough sourcing for it to remain. // Timothy :: talk 17:36, 30 August 2020 (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.