Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayesian Kepler periodogram

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 merge to Doppler spectroscopy. Mgm|^(talk) 23:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayesian Kepler periodogram

This technique for analysing radial velocity curves of exoplanets is non-notable: it has only been used in 2 papers, both by the same author. No convincing discoveries have been made using it (HD 208487 c is probably an artifact of stellar activity [1], and there is no evidence of HD 11964 d in re-reduced data [2]. Icalanise (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- El on ka 23:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - listed here because WP:PROD was declined. Icalanise (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — notable as this method has been extensively discussed in the literature; see e.g. Loredo 2004, Ford 2005, Cumming 2004 (§ 2–3), Gregory 2005a (chapter 12), Gregory 2005b, Ford and Gregory 2007, Gregory 2007a, Gregory 2007b. Spacepotato (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - is the application of Bayesian inference to a specific kind of data really worth its own article? How about redirecting/merging into Bayesian inference? Icalanise (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayesian statistics has near-universal applicability, so it's not practical to discuss every application of Bayesian statistics in Bayesian inference. If you want to merge I would suggest adding a section on data analysis to Doppler spectroscopy. Then we could discuss this method, the Lomb-Scargle periodogram, etc. Spacepotato (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced Doppler spectroscopy is a good target - the title of that article suggests a focus on the experimental techniques of obtaining the radial velocities. Might be better to merge into Radial velocity instead. Icalanise (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge per Spacepotato. I think this meets the general notability guideline per the published references, although just barely. If not kept as a separate article I think it is certainly worth mentioning somewhere and redirecting so that someone searching for this term is led directly to the best place. --Itub (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Spacepotato. Gregory (2005) makes mention of both Doppler spectroscopy and MCMC, and this article seems suitable for a data analysis section of Doppler spectroscopy. Otherwise keep.—RJH (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, merge into Doppler spectroscopy. Icalanise (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2008 (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.