Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planning statistical research

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planning statistical research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This would a fairly sensible passage from a book on Planning Statistical Research, although it does not appear to be verbatim. But Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Transwiki to Wikibooks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Statistician. Hiberniantears 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's silly. If this is to be merged into another article, it should be design of experiments. Michael Hardy 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The assumption that experiments are not typically designed with the statistical analyses in mind, and thus that this is in any way a separate topic from the design of experiments, is very wrong. The title is exceptionally poor, implying (IMO) that it has to do research into the subject of statics, when it is in fact something more like the "design of experiments with respect to the anticipated statistical analyses". The writing is very poor, and there's nothing in the way of references to suggest that this was originally based on a clear idea to begin with. Pete.Hurd 20:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into design of experiments. The objection that this is just a "how-to" is at best uninformed. This is a large area of scholarly research. Michael Hardy 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do not merge - the person(s) who wrote this article can't even reflect the title in the body of the article. Any thing that needs to be said about experimental design can be said somewhere else - this is a mess. MarkBul 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also Delete Resentful demoralization that links to this one - there's nothing to it. MarkBul 23:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment resentful demoralization just needs clean-up, hint google "resentful demoralisation", the "s" spelling pays off. Pete.Hurd 23:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 06:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The content is too vague to be worth merging into design of experiments or sampling (statistics). -- Avenue 11:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Do not merge. Contents is useless practically and worthless theoretically. Despite its venerable pedigree[1] this feels like it was lifted from a student essay or course notes.  --Lambiam 16:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to design of experiments. It seems like a reasonable search term but DoE is the most suitable encylopedic topic. --Salix alba (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a how-to. Our article on Design of experiments is way more interesting and has a user-friendly beginning. Generally our articles should not give advice, but are allowed to give sourced information on what people have done previously. The article also lacks references. I wouldn't object if this title were redirected to Design of experiments. EdJohnston 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per above. • Lawrence Cohen 13:38, 24 September 2007 (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.