Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Correlation coefficient

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 Wrong forum.. AfD is for deletion nominations, not for merger proposals. Please make such proposals on the article talk page. There is in any case no consensus for a merger here. Sandstein 12:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation coefficient

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

As Talk:Correlation coefficient, a weird mix of disambiguation and article page, maybe better to be merged with Correlation and dependence −ebrahim^talk 06:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is needed and has several incoming links from ordinary articles. Put {{disambig}} at its end. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Anthony Appleyard: This would at most be an {{SIA}}, not a {{disambig}}, as these are kinds of the same thing, not ambiguous concepts. bd2412 T 13:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a widely used term in statistics. It is true that the article does need some clean-up, but this would be better discussed on the article's talk page than here. Vorbee (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and section-redirect to Correlation and dependence. This is a WP:DABCONCEPT for which the conversion to a broad concept article was initiated, but expert attention is needed to carry it through to a proper article. Since this is a subtopic of Correlation and dependence, and is mentioned in that article, I see no reason that this content should not be merged there until it is further developed. bd2412 T 13:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and section-redirect to Correlation and dependence. Correlation is a better lede. Correlation and dependence is a better article. I am strongly in favor of fixing, merging, or deleting these ten-year-old stubs in statistics and finance. Rhadow (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned it is a widely used term and even if the article is in a bad state currently that suggests that it should not be merged or deleted but rather due attention paid to it in order to bring it up to standard. EvilxFish (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I counted 11 mainspace articles linking in here. Article could be clearer, but is cited, and almost serves as a DAB page for the more specialised correlations that are linked to. Nick Moyes (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~This is necessary disambig. page.~~ There is no way this page should be deleted. Perhaps one could argue that we need two pages, Correlation and dependence (more general subject) and Correlation coefficient. Or maybe they should be merged into one page, Correlation coefficient. But it should not be deleted or made a "redirect". My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Correlation and dependence – which should really be named Correlation (statistics) – to form a section there, and redirect there. The fact that articles link to here is in my opinion irrelevant, especially if Correlation coefficient simply redirects to the new section Correlation (statistics)#Correlation coefficient. --Lambiam 14:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having this as a current brief disambig. page is a lot more helpful for a reader who is not an expert or just a student. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a matter of properly presenting the material. Precisely because Correlation coefficient is now a stand-alone article, it cannot come directly to the point but needs to mumble in the lead what "correlation" means. (I say "mumble" because the definition is not particularly enlightening to a novice in the area.) A subsection Correlation (statistics)#Correlation coefficient could, after a very brief opening paragraph (like "A correlation coefficient is a numerical measure of some type of correlation. Each type has its own definition, range of usability and characteristics; they have in common that they assume values in the range from −1 to +1, where +1 indicates the strongest possible agreement and −1 the strongest possible disagreement.") continue directly with a paragraph like: "The best known and most commonly used type of correlation is the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. When the term 'correlation coefficient' is used without further qualification, it usually refers to the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient is also known as r, R, or Pearson's r. It is a measure ...". This organization and presentation will probably serve the non-expert better. --Lambiam 08:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your argument I think we should keep and improve current page (maybe to remove or clarify the "mumble"). The matter may need more discussion. The best course of action here will be to keep this page with edit history, and then discuss merging or whatever other changes on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is this a nomination for merger? Don't we have a template (template:mergeto) for that? Also, a disambiguation page which explains clearly the different possible destinations is a good thing! Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly. If there are different correlation coefficients, this can be most conveniently handled by having a brief disambig. page. Reading a highly detailed Correlation and dependence page is a lot less convenient for someone quickly looking for something. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if there are "different correlation coefficients", this would be a topic for a WP:SIA or WP:BROADCONCEPT article; disambiguation pages are for unrelated concepts, like seal (the animal), seal (the mechanical joinder), and Seal (the musician). bd2412 T 20:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I am looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, and it tells: "Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term". "...referenced by the same search term" - yes, that is what I thought. My very best wishes (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Different" topics, though - which is why, for example, "Coca Cola" is not a disambiguation page listing the different kinds of the drink. See, specifically, Wikipedia:Broad-concept article#Physics and mathematics. bd2412 T 21:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see. But it is obvious that page Correlation coefficient must exist, either as a standalone "general subject" page or as a disambig. page. There is no way it should be deleted. Perhaps one could argue that we need two pages, Correlation and dependence (more general subject) and Correlation coefficient. Or maybe they should be merged into one page, Correlation coefficient. But it should not be deleted or made a "redirect". My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2018 (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.