Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adaptive coordinate descent

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 no consensus. As no more comments seem to be forthcoming, I am closing this as no consensus, without prejudice to taking this to AfD again if the article doesn't improve over the next month or so. Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive coordinate descent[edit]

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

Non-notable. The main paper about this method has been cited a mere 13 times according to GScholar. The content of the article was previously removed from the article Coordinate descent because it was deemed promotional.

PROD contested by an anonymous editor. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author of the method and article. My comment was: "The article explains the concept of performing coordinate descent with an adaptive coordinate system with support of a few illustrations. Citations index is a weak argument. It would be better to extend the description of old and new relevant approaches." I would be glad to know your arguments to support article deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.22.235 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The academic article or the wikipedia article?--Savonneux (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Pavlov paper describes the method in reasonable depth [1] and is independent of what the nominator calls "the main paper" as far as I know. It would just scrape through the notability requirement on that alone, but I note that Pavlov predates (2006) "the main paper" (2011) so that is clearly not the original source of the method, hence is likely independent of the original source also, and hence also counts towards notability. I also note that there are several mentions in gbooks results and that a paper by Tasadduq et al. describes the method as "well-known". Having said that, it is a truly awful encyclopaedia article as it completely fails to give any context to the general reader of what the article is actually about. However, such failings are not grounds for deletion here. SpinningSpark 11:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Spinningspark: Pavlov's Algorithm 1 and Loshchilov's Algorithm 3 look entirely different, solve different problems, and Loshchilov doesn't cite Pavlov at all. These appear to be distinct algorithms that just happen to have the same name. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't pretend to understand this material, but to my mind any algorithm that repeatedly changes coordinates in order to converge on a desired result can sensibly be called adaptive coordinate descent. It does not matter that an entirely different algorithm is being used to solve an entirely different problem. The article currently makes no coherent attempt to define its own scope. Until it does, I think I am entitled to assume the widest scope possible. That combined with several book sources and papers (Theodoridis, Glasmachers and Dogan. Hlupic, Tasadduq et al.) directly referencing Loshchilov in the context of adaptive coordinate descent scrapes it through notability for me. SpinningSpark 15:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of interest? Original research? - must be provided on the talk page of the article. The article can still remain part of the encyclopedia if it is written from a neutral point of view but no one can promote their own research by creating an article about it.

Comment - the article creator's username implies a close connection to this topic and article. His/her edit history suggests that the creation of the account may have been for the purpose of creating this article.

Bfpage |leave a message 20:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Krakatoa Katie 13:30, 10 September 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.