"

 Recap 

I decided to withhold further comment until I had some sleep and time to critique the logic behind your deletion decision. I am delaying a trip this morning so that I can provide you with a response to your statement supporting deletion.

Your supporting statement for deletion is as follows: 

""The result was Delete. The deletion argument was that this is original research when the article title is used to describe an algorithm, and that the references do not support the notability of the subject. Despite the verbose nature of the opposing comment, these arguments were not clearly refuted. The use of socks to give the appearance of greater support is also extremely problematic, and I have counted those opinions as being from User:Julie Dancer. Kevin (talk) ""

As for ""The deletion argument was that this is original research when the article title is used to describe an algorithm..."" 
In reality the article title names a type of classification which arranges attributes in order of their significance.  Within the deletion discussion itself the calim is made by  at  that other algorithms exist, namely Examples of relevant works are ""A Fast, Bottom-Up Decision Tree Pruning Algorithm with Near-Optimal Generalization"" and ""An Efficient Algorithm For Optimal Pruning Of Decision Trees"". which are capable of performing the function the article title names:

If this is accurate then the right way to handle a necessary correction would be to add these algorithms to the article instead of nominating the article for deletion.

In anticipation of these other algorithms being added I immediately changed the body of the text to read ""The algorithm used for this purpose..."" to ""One algorithm used for this purpose..."" Since I do not now have access to the article's history as the result of your deletion I can not give you the exact date and time. However, it was prior to the end of the deletion discussion. (Incidentally, it has been suggested by a Professor at Cornell that deleting the article was for the purpose of eliminating the article history.)

Normally as a Wikipedia user I would expect other users who have an issue with such wording to correct it themselves as this is one reason the Wikipedia was setup this way. The Wikipedia still claims to be ""...the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.""  

The impression I have now is that while there were an abundance of editors in the beginning who edited articles that there is now an abundance of spoiled children who expect articles to be perfect from the beginning or for someone else to edit them. They simply do not understand that each article is considered to be a work in progress and the Wikipedia being an opportunity to learn how to write and to edit rather than being completed. Instead of doing any work themselves they find it much easier to go around deleting articles which remain incomplete or have not yet reached a state of perfection, especially a maintenance edit like adding an inline reference that would require them to do any real work themselves. 

As for ""...references not supporting the notability of the subject"" 
You can not logically make this statement without reading the reference or references first and you certainly can not follow this with a statement like ""Despite the verbose nature of the opposing comment, these arguments were not clearly refuted."" All of the arguments supporting deletion are clearly refuted in the text of the primary reference to which I deferred. Just as you saying that a stop light was green in a court of law when you did not look at the light would be a lie so would be claiming the reference did not support notability when you did not read it. I know you did not read the primary reference because all arguments supporting deletion are clearly refuted by the both the primary reference and the references it contains.

As for ""The use of socks to give the appearance of greater support is also extremely problematic... 
This shows you did not read or comprehend the response I made in the deletion discussion or only scanned it. I explained that each of the user names were created so that I could track the use of my own resources better, similar to the need on the part of the Wikipedia to require bots to have their own user name even though several may be owned by the same user. Eventually at least one of my computes will be used to accommodate bots, but currently I am able to meet all of my needs by downloading the Wikipedia and mining it off line.

Since the existence of the alternate user names was stated and known by all from the beginning of the deletion discussion there is no w