Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entropy Guided Transformation Learning (2nd nomination)

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. JForget 00:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy Guided Transformation Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

WP:N/WP:UNDUE/WP:OR. This is an idea proposed by very few people (which can all be found in the 3-4 references given) Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Their work has been published in peer-reviewed journals. That the idea hasn't caught on yet is not relevant: awareness of it in relevant communities is shown. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That the idea has not caught on is extremely relevant, this shows that the idea does not meet the notability criterion, there's millions of ideas published in peer-reviewed journals, notable ones get dedicated reviews, this one hasn't. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to Delete per the above reply. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google scholar shows [1], that the papers on it have never been cited by anyone but the authors themselves. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, much of the article is (possibly) copyvio from [2] and the concept is not notable. As Headbomb and DGG point out, academic ideas have to be more than simply published to become notable. Abductive (reasoning) 02:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to non-notablilty of concept. There are thousands of newly proposed ideas appearing in peer-reviewed journals every year. This doesn't make them notable. --Robin (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2009 (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.