Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayesian regret (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Michig (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bayesian regret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Page appears to be largely unchanged from the version that was deleted in 2006. Appears to be a clear case of WP:OR, with one paper (by Smith) as the primary reference. Also appears to be an attempt to promote range voting over other voting systems, which would violate WP:NPOV. I am confused as to why this article was created in the first place - it was declined through WP:AFC and was eligible for speedy deletion. Then some user came along, re-submitted the article, and immediately accepted it. --Oneforfortytwo (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment GScholar gives a hundred-forty-odd hits over a variety of fields, including this paper which defines the term on the fly. I gather there is a certain low grade interest in the idea. The article as it stands is pretty poor, though. Mangoe (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge term seems to be used in academic literature, for example Dynamic portfolio choice with Bayesian regret. However, the topic may better be covered as part of another broader article for example Loss function or Regret (decision theory). Finally, article could be improved. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. sufficient use in the scientific literature. (a merge is possible, but should be discussed separately). DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG.--Doncram (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2018 (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.