Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard normal deviate

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 procedural keep. The nominator recommends that the article be replaced with a redirect, but it is not necessary to invoke the AfD process to do this. No administrator tools are needed and WP:BRD is sufficient. Procedurally, because there are no opinions suggesting the material should be deleted without redirect, this debate falls under WP:SK ground 1. NAC by—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Standard normal deviate

Delete, with redirect. The topic of the nominated article is already covered in the normal distribution article. Besides, the terms standard normal, standard normal variable, standard normal distribution, standard normal random variable all redirect to normal distribution already. // stpasha » 01:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are shades of meaning and context here that are not adequately covered by the normal distribution article, and which it would be unhelpful for a reader to search through a long article to find if some attempt were made tom include it: and of course the topic has little directly to do with the normal distribution as a distribution, whichg is supposedly the topic of that article. I have restored the redirect of standard normal variable, to point to standard normal deviate as it should do but was redirected after an automatic change following the earlier attempt to impose a so-called merge for which there was no support. Melcombe (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure I started this page in ignorance of the term, which I came across in my work. I think that a redirect could be appropriate so long as the term is explicitly mentioned in the normal distribution page, with the meaning/context mentioned by User:Melcombe in the previous comment.Jimjamjak (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2010 (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.