Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thurs statistical function

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. Wizardman 17:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thurs statistical function

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

This article cites two articles with seven and eleven citations in GScholar, respectively, which is not enough to establish notability. Moreover, it does not have references for the bulk of its text, which is written in the first person plural, suggesting either plagiarism or original research. I tried a web search to find references, but I couldn't find any. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nominator. Also, article is atrociously written. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Retain.I (DrDBKarron) have the attention of Prof Powell now and he now editing this. Dbkarron (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retain I will be using it to process medical data in 2014 to investigate the points advanced by the Multiple Chronic Conditions (MCC) initiative of the Department of Health and Human Services. Valerie J H Powell, co-editor of Powell, V et al., Integration of Medical and Dental Care and Patient Data (Springer UK, 2012: http://www.springer.com/public+health/book/978-1-4471-2184-8).Valerie541 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

spurious reason with no basis in Wikipedia policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as non-notable WP:OR. -- 101.119.29.206 (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources have been added, but they're all works by this prof. Powell and GScholar reports no citations for several of the cited works, so whether they can be regarded third-party sources is dubious despite peer review. (If citations can be found in other systems than Google, please say so.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2014 (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.