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 UserJulie 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 BottomUp Decision Tree Pruning Algorithm with NearOptimal 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 articles 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 way they could have given the appearance of offering greater support against deletion except to persons who did no read and come up to speed on what ground the deletion discussion had already covered   Here is a copy of my first response to that accusation   Use of these various resources can not be tracked online in any other way and contrary to Jiuguangs imagination they have never been used in a sock puppet fashion and are not intended to be used in that way They simply serve my own need to keep track of what I and my resources are doing and I defy you to show that they have ever been used intentionally in any other way Julie Dancer talk   Here is a copy of my second response to the accusation of using alternate user names for the purpose giving any appearance whatsoever of greater support against deletion  It can skew the view of consensus perhaps in an argument but only when it is not known and I have never engaged in an argument on the basis of numbers versus reason My basis for winning any argument is the basis of being right not the basis of out numbering In that regard what about the fact that skewing the view of consensus is in far greater danger from Wikipedia members who have something in common like belonging to the same robotics cabal or who share a mutual obligation from belonging to the same religious sect or school of thought and know who each other are This happens as a matter of fact quite frequently in the Wikipedia Julie Dancer talk  As for support for deletion not being cabalized if you look on s talk page for the day or day after he first posted his robotics project template banner on the Optimal classification discussion page and on the his AI project page which I think he has already deleted you will find that he and     have robotics connection  Since they use their real name as their user names I am convinced now that their mind set was that Julie Dancer was the name of a real live girl This would explain why Jiuguang was looking for other information about Julie Dancer and how he found the other user names and why Jiuguang and Jameson Tai were playing good cop bad cop with Julie Dancer on her talk page and on  the deletion discussion page  Have a nice day