Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Additive state decomposition

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. No support for deletion here. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additive state decomposition

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

Fails WP:GNG with no independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you're looking for a too-specific name. Amongst other things, in statistics and economics, this is one of the classical decomposition methods of time-series analysis, alongside multiplicative (a.k.a. product), log-additive, and pseudo-additive decomposition, and it is usually called simply additive decomposition. The people who tagged this "too technical" might be interested in the For Dummies explanation of this, which can be found on pages 245–247 of ISBN 9781118940013. A slightly more extensive treatment can be found on pages 93–95 of ISBN 9780521565882. This is a very narrow and specialized explanation of a general thing. Uncle G (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, can be referenced to sources verifying general notability by using the search term provided by Uncle G. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references have been added to the article since this nomination. DeVerm (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as convincing enough, contents and sources are enough, overall comments suggest this can be closed now. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 27 May 2016 (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.