Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border pairs method Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Border_pairs_method

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. Will userfy if requested for merging once a suitable merge target is agreed upon. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Border pairs method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Delete: Notability not established. "Border+Pairs+Method" Google Scholar says no citations. This is not at all surprising for a 2011 published work, but still doesn't qualify for Wikipedia IMHO. Chire (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, and in particular, as an academic concept, there appears to be be no papers about this aside from the notation of a conference. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Machine learning. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure that it is suitable for merging. As far as I can tell, this method has only been introduced as a conference paper in January 2011 [1] and I don't see any real discussion about it. We don't include every single concept ever written about in an academic paper. Even for merging, I'd expect to see some hint of notability. If this concept is useful, I suspect it would need additional research and peer review before it could be established. -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the machine learning article is a mess, I wouldn't cram yet another method (in particular a non-standard one) in there. Since it is a neural network method, that article would be at least a bit more appropriate, but I wouldn't cram it there either. --Chire (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Machine learning#Approaches. Not notable enough as stand-alone article. This is not a difficult merge. Editors of Machine learning can determine if the material is notable enough to be retained there. --Kvng (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, this is not a general, broad machine learning method, but a very specialized one. It doesn't fit into the "Approaches" section, that discusses much more general approaches. According to the Border pairs method page, it is specific to learning a Multilayer perceptron (it links "MLP"), which is then a type of Artificial neural networks, which are (rightfully) linked from Machine learning#Approaches. Therefore, it should not be merged to machine learning. And IMHO the quality of the article doesn't warrant merging it into any article, given that the method apparently is uncited so far in literature. --Chire (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Previous comments to User:Cusop Dingle's merge proposal did not go unnoticed. I feel these issues can best be dealt with by editors of Machine learning. --Kvng (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not Multilayer perceptron, which AFAICT (I'm not deep into machine learning) is more closely related? --Chire (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing vote to Merge somewhere. Perhaps Artificial neural networks. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google scholar finds only one research paper containing this phrase, with zero citations. That's not enough even for including it as part of another article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per David Eppstein. —Ruud 22:25, 4 December 2011 (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.