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 merge to Random forest. slakr^\ talk / 11:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Random multinomial logit

[edit]

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

This article cites only a single paper, which in turn discusses a rather straightforward application of random forest ideas to logistic regression instead of decision trees. I.e., notability is not established. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with the previous comment. The scientific article ("Random forests for multiclass classification: Random MultiNomial Logit By: Prinzie, Anita; Van den Poel, Dirk in EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS Volume: 34 Issue: 3 Pages: 1721-1732 Published: APR 2008") has been cited 37 times in other peer-reviewed academic journals according to ISI. Hence, it has been a source of inspiration to many other authors. If the extension were so "straightforward", other authors would not cite this article! 17:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by dvdpwiki (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 37 cites is enough for an article? A ridiculous claim: at least many hundreds are needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

*Comment. I'm leaning towards delete, but is it possible for the article to be greatly expanded upon before it is deleted to establish notability? 3er40 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the below comment. I think that would be the best course of action. 3er40 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about a Selective merge to Random forest? This technique would appear to have some merit, so worth a short section in that article, while lacking enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to justify an article of its own at present. If it takes off in the future, it could be split off again when there are sources to justify that. Qwfp (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems the appropriate course of action, Qwfp. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge is fine with me. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge to Random forest as suggested above. ~KvnG 18:31, 8 February 2014 (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.