Radovednik

Proposed deletion of Border pairs method

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Border pairs method, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Sorry, but the wikipedia requirements say that we need independent (third party) resources that acertain that the research is also notable. Right now, this is not satisfied. I tried, but could not find an independent publication (an independent book would be perfect) that supports the research as notable. --93.133.218.46 (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bipropagation

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Bipropagation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Sorry, but the wikipedia requirements say that we need independent (third party) resources that acertain that the research is also notable. Right now, this is not satisfied. I tried, but could not find an independent publication (an independent book would be perfect) that supports the research as notable.

You might want to read Wikipedia:Third-party sources, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Independent sources. Please don't take this as an offense. It's just that we have to draw a line somewhere and include only that in an encyclopedia which is, well widely known and accepted research. --93.133.218.46 (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Border pairs method for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Border pairs method is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border pairs method until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Chire (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment-out of Border Pairs Method section in MLP

I have commented out your paragraph on the Border Pairs Method in the Multilayer perceptron article. The cited source was the the article that describes BPM itself, but to be included in the MLP article, there should be some evaluation or justification of its importance or relevance to the very-general concept of an MLP. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)