Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consecutive sampling

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.Am satisfied by Mark's overhaul. Merge proposal may be discussed at t/p.Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consecutive sampling

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

Essay and/or a host of OR(To quote--The author of this text once conducted.....) .Does not seem to be notable by itself.A redirect may be plausible. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to be based on a couple of references in the paper. It does not merit it's own article. Can be redirected to design of experiments or other relevant article. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- Old wine, new bottle. The term is Convenience sample as it is defined in the article. Rhadow (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Nonprobability sampling. I have rewritten the article, eliminating OR and adding RS references. The article is now backed by six book sources. A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows this to be a common technique of nonprobability sampling in epidemiology, and is different than convenience sampling. There is enough material out there to support a reasonable stub-class article. But merging to nonprobability sampling would also be a good option and might provide better context. --Mark viking (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Based on well referenced rewrite, I suggest we go in whatever way Mark viking suggests. Rhadow (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2017 (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.