Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimensionality reduction

Dimensionality reduction was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep


 * I've been hoping this article would expand into an explanation on the topic but it remains a "see also" list with links. I felt it needed to be listed on VfD rather than speedy deleted for lack of content so someone could tell me why not to delete this list of links. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:01, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - It's a perfectly valid topic, although not a perfectly valid stub, but that shouldn't be grounds for deletion, generally. We don't delete every other stub that doesn't expand exponentially, but this one has been around for a few months in its current state. It needs cleanup and expansion, but if it hasn't happened already... I'm not inclined to delete valid topics though, thus my vote. TPK 16:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't object to a valid stub. This has no stub!  Find me a single sentence in this article.  A phrase?  Clause?  Adjective? Verb or two?  There is nothing to expand. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Texture. --Farside 16:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rewrite looks good. --Farside 21:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It's...it's...a portal page? Delete as not having content.  It has had months, so the creator has had time to come back, and it hasn't attracted anyone via the "links here," so I can't see keeping.  Geogre 17:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Wile E. Heresiarch's rewriting. Geogre 14:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep if something can be added to it other than links, or merge and redirect. The term gets 24k Google hits, so someone may come here looking for information on it. -- Netoholic @ 19:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * If they do come here they will be surprised to discover we didn't write an article. They can get better links from yahoo. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  19:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to cleanup list. "Dimensionality reduction" is a topic in statistics. I'll put it on my to-do list. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, then cleanup. -- PFHLai 23:42, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless someone creates a valid stub. Ambi 09:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Followup: I've written some text. Take a look. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looks good. It either needed actual content or to be deleted.  I'm glad you were able to help. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly valid and important mathematical topic with applications in a variety of natural and social sciences. Psychonaut 17:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sensible subject. I'll add something on PCA/EOF (William M. Connolley 20:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC))
 * Keep. Wile E.'s rewrite is good.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 20:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wile E. has addressed the problems raised. - RedWordSmith 21:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looks good now. Improv 17:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a worthy topic, and if the article's not good enough the solution is a edit rather than to delete.  But maybe it should be moved to "dimension reduction".  "Dimensionality" to me connotes that stuff physicists do when they talk contrast things that have units of measurement, on the one hand, with dimensionless numbers, on the other hand. Michael Hardy 21:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)