Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boruta (algorithm)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Boruta (algorithm)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notablility. Tagged since September 2014. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or Merge (to feature selection, and redirect to there). This is a method of feature selection, which seems to be selection of variables to use in prediction, out of many variables available. The term "boкuta algorithm" appears in google scholar search, it seems notable to me. However it should be covered in, and linked from feature selection. -- do  ncr  am  01:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nearly all on Google Scholar is from algorithm's authors and coworkers. No independent analysis. Fails WP:GNG. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The relevant article has 106 cites on GScholar from various, presumably independent research groups. The article is open access though, so it naturally attracts more cites, and those are "I used your soft" cites (as opposed to "I read your research" cites). I would argue that the algorithm is not a topic of research within a small community, but rather a tool (and an obscure one) that sometimes gets picked up. Tigraan (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a particular implementation for feature selection process and they are not necessarily encyclopedic in nature. LokeshRavindranathan 09:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete perhaps and restart or draft & userfy later only if needed as the current article is questionable for the applicable notability and improvemenets. Notifying for analysis.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.