Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cumulative density function

Cumulative density function

[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)

Is this really a valid dab page as is? Hildeoc (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd suggest converting it to a simple redirect to Cumulative distribution function because that's almost certainly what the reader is looking for, and if it isn't, they'll find enough information there to sort themselves out. This certainly isn't necessary as a dab page as it's only pointing to two things, that are in any case so closely related that they will be referred to in each other's article. Elemimele (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: The phrase "almost certainly" is certainly wrong. Perhaps you don't realize how confused students can be sometimes. Furthermore, people have linked to "cumulative density function" in Wikipedia articles, and then, confronted with the contradiction and the facts, have tried to argue about the matter, defending their use of that phrase as correct. Have you looked at those links, specifically at the way the phrase was used? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cumulative distribution function, per Elemimele. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect, I don't care which. It's definitely a helpful pointer from a common mistake (so common that Google Scholar claims to have some 53k hits for that exact phrase). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to cumulative distribution function. Having this page is merely a needless layer of indirection between the reader and the material they're looking for. XOR'easter (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR&: @XOR'easter: The result will be that those who make this mistake will continue to make this mistake instead of getting it fixed. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have a reference explicitly calling it a mistake, then we can't call it a mistake, as opposed to the many instances of mathematical terminology that are confusing and illogical but still in common use. If we do have a reference, then all we need to do is include a sentence or two in cumulative distribution function. Having separate pages for mathematical terms about which there is almost nothing to say is more dictionary-like than encyclopedic and scatters the presentation. XOR'easter (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a few thousand pageviews annually, suggesting that this does indeed serve some sort of navigational purpose. I have no strong feelings about keeping vs. redirecting, but deleting seems misguided with that in mind. TompaDompa (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a frequent mistake of confused students. If not corrected, those who make this mistake will continue in error. The page gets a couple of dozen views per day. It is thus serving a useful purpose. And those who say people "almost certainly" mean "cumulative distribution function" should adduce empirical data to show that. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if the article is to be kept because the confusion is a common one, then rather than merely telling the reader they're wrong, it might be helpful to tell them why they're wrong. I've therefore added a very short explanation. It's not sourced, because it's still in the spirit of a dab-page, and the explanation is only to help the reader access properly sourced information at the two pages dealing with the real subjects. But in a way, we could even remove the dab-template because this isn't really a dab anymore; it could be viewed as an explanation of a concept that the keep-!voters feel is a notable misunderstanding? Do please have a look, anyone, at the text I've added and improve it, or comment on whether you think it's misguided, it's just an idea.... Elemimele (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For input on the changes made by Elemimele...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per data from David Eppstein and TompaDompa, I think it's a common enough mistake to worth having the disambiguation page. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the page is plainly helpful in directing readers to the right page, and it has been well improved during this AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]