Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gain (information retrieval)

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. KTC (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gain (information retrieval)

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

What this article describes is nothing more than "relative improvement over chance", an idea which is not specific to information retrieval (nor even to computer science) and which is probably not complex enough to warrant its own article. In fact, it's sufficiently trivial or obvious that it doesn't seem to be covered in the surveys and introductory books I've consulted (such as Manning et al.'s Introduction to Information Retrieval). To the extent that there is any material here worth salvaging, it would be better placed in precision and recall. Psychonaut (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of this article is true, except that gain is not necessarily defined in comparison to a random baseline and is not specific to classifiers even in IR. But the concept of gain is not in the glossary from Modern Information Retrieval either, nor in the index of my 1999 edition, nor can I find a research paper that makes a point of defining it. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 26 November 2015 (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.