Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explicit semantic analysis

Explicit semantic analysis

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

The article erroneously defines the subject as being Wikipedia-specific. A Google search quickly verifies that ESA is a generic term, and is not limited to a particular corpus. The webpage http://regularlyexpressed.com/using-explicit-semantic-analysis-to-discover-meaningful-relatedness/, presents a generic definition:

Explicit Semantic Analysis (ESA) is a data-based approach to finding similarities between two text documents. The basic idea is that two documents are similar if the most important words in document A are strongly semantically related to the most important words in document B.

Please delete, as the whole article is in error and therefore miseducates readers. The Transhumanist 21:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Transhumanist 21:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [as nom] – delete this misinformation. A new article on the actual subject needs to be written. The Transhumanist 21:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal, but the nomination itself is assumed to be your !vote. I added "[as nom]" to clarify. If you don't feel this is necessary, feel free to revert. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep—We don't delete bad articles on notable subjects, we fix them. That said, (Gabrilovich 2006) is Wikipedia-specific, with generalizations of the technique left for future work. That discussion, however, should be left to the talk page of the article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Erroneous AfD request: no valid reason for deletion per WP:AfD/WP:DEL is given. Content disputes are not valid reasons for deletion (unless the whole article is rendered unsalvageable nonsense, which isn't the case here). Proposer seems to accept the topic is notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is notable, and the article is at least partially correct. If it is not fully correct, it just makes it similar to about 2 or 3 million other articles we have. Nothing warranting deletion here that I can see. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]