Deletion of K-Vector

Comment: I am not concerned by the likely connection between the author of the article and the author of some of the references. There are enough references to meet  and whatever the k-vector is it is used in serious projects where it is apparently useful. I thought the topic was notable when I reviewed it at AfC and I still think it is. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The article relies only on primary sources. It is unclear whether the journal and the meetings where the sources are published are notable in their field (flight navigation and flight mechanics), but it is clear that they are not notable for the subject of this article (databases), and that their referees are certainly not specialists of the subject. Thus there is nothing suggesting that this is not , and that the results would satisfy our notability guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: It appears from the added references that this topic may be notable in astronomy, and more specifically in celestial mechanics. But the article is presented (and categorized) as belonging to data base algorithmic, and its content is absolutely not notable in this field. For being acceptable, there are two possible ways for improving the article, both needing a major rewrite.  The first method is to keep it as an article of data bases and algorithmic. This would need a comparison (complexity and practical efficiency) with the best algorithms of the literature. IMO these comparisons would be , and the resulting article would not satisfy the criteria of notability in algorithmic
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)