Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cascade correlation algorithm: Difference between revisions

Cascade correlation algorithm

Not notable, only 472 google hits, no citable info, just a .pdf file, no evidence of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmaguir1 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-28 02:30:30

• Google scholar is not google 472 is an amazing number of papers on a subject, and the pdf file is of a peer-reviewed paper. yes, the wrong source was cited, but the reference is as good as they get. LinaMishima 02:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Google Scholar most definitely is Google. Uncle G 02:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, yes, but you know what I mean. It's not google-the-web, it's google-sciency-stuffs. As "X Google hits" commonly refers to a websearch with google, the same format should not be used for scholar results. LinaMishima 03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No, we don't know what you mean. Your use of "Google" was just as vague and imprecise as the use that you are criticising. Personally, I try to always write "Google Web" when I'm talking about Google Web Search, especially when contrasting it with another Google service. Uncle G 09:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with artificial neural networks, there's a nice space for it already. LinaMishima 02:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, not notable enough to stand alone.-Kmaguir1 03:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merged, awaiting redirect I saw no reason for the content to not be on artificial neural networks, so it's been merged. Haven't done the redirect yet, as I'd consider that bad AfD form (since it's effectively deleting) LinaMishima 03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please copy over my expanded citation details for original article if content merged. LotLE×talk 03:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Done, thank you for that! Unfortunately the referencing sytle the article uses makes seeing the addition hard, but it's there, in the same format as the rest (or as near as possible). LinaMishima 03:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This concept seems to show up on Google scholar with 472 cites. Taking a look at some of these might provide information to flesh out this article. LotLE×talk 02:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article has enough information to exist on its own. Furthermore, the topic is interesting. Non-notability should be less of an issue as this article may not be particularly popular, given the specialized topic, however, it does provideuseful information that some users would enjoy. Wikipedia is not a paper. As such there is essentially limitless space to provide useful information. Going in depth on topics will only add to the value of Wikipedia to users. Nlsanand 05:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep "no citable info, just a .pdf file" So since when have PDFs not been citable? Seems to warrant an article IMO Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems to have a reasonable number of citations according to CiteSeer. [1] Cedars 11:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Referenced, encyclopaedic. Notability is a terrible criterion in Math, Science and the like WilyD 13:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Comes up during any introductory course on neural networks and introduces significant changes to these. Also, the topic recently has been getting attention in the field of modelling cognitive development.blackvoid 15:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I think this stands up as an independent article. It could use some expansion, such as graphics illustrating the algorithm and more specific explanation of how it works, but that can happen with time. The expanded version I'd want would be too long for inclusion in whole in Arificial neural networks (but a "see also" between them would certainly be relevant). LotLE×talk 17:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)