Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statistical stability

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 delete. ✗plicit 13:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical stability

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The original version of this is more or less gibberish; if anything, it has gotten worse. There seems to be the common sense notion in the social sciences that one hopes that repetition of studies produces consistent results, but as it is, this needs treatment with WP:TNT. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This common sense notion is not developed either, but used as a vehicle to promote the initial authors' Theory of hyper-random phenomena, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of hyper-random phenomena (that article had similar issues and was deleted 2017.) 129.16.31.116 (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unusually well structured pile of WP:SYNTH constructed for the purpose of promoting WP:OR. PianoDan (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article Statistical stability was essentially created in one shot, with references and all, by a single author, I.I.Gorban, the same author of Theory of hyper-random phenomena which has now been deleted. All the edits following the initial one were just minor tweaks. Seems like a case of self-promotion, or at least promotion of a field where he is the main contributor. So also WP:COI. PatrickR2 (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination's comment one hopes that repetition of studies produces consistent results is more clearly written than the article. The text tries to cram in just about everybody whose name is associated with the fundamentals of probability theory, including at least one who just included a coin-tossing example in a textbook (Feynman). I concur with the above !voters that we have a conflict-of-interest synthesis case here. XOR'easter (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stub. The nominator refers to an essay as a deletion rationale: WP:TNT, which means blow it up and start over, not delete it. I agree it should be stubbed. Our actual policies are to WP:PRESERVE and find WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no stub that can be saved here. I'm happier when an article can be salvaged, but this time, the only relevant section of WP:PRESERVE is WP:DON'T PRESERVE. XOR'easter (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2022 (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.