Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threshold in piecewise regression analysis

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. (X! · talk) · @077 · 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold in piecewise regression analysis

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ligong Chen, this is part of a massive walled garden of articles concerning non-notable academic Ligong Chen's idiosyncratic take on statistics. Perhaps there is the possibility of a worthy article with something resembling the present title, but the present article itself is of no use in reaching that state. It was prodded, but the prod was removed; I'd include the other articles listed at the Chen AfD as part of this AfD, but there's still a possibility that the prod might work for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless further evidence of notability is provided. I'm not quite sure what the rules for notability in mathematics articles are, but I doubt this meets them. Robofish (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. (Edit: Skbkekas said it better.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient notability, and due to lack of evidence that the material discussed in the article is accepted as being meaningful by anyone other than the article's author. Skbkekas (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is in a primitive state, and I won't expect to see a change in the near future. BUT, the subject is (From my understanding of statistics) of relevance. If it was excepted as part of an academic journal, I would suspect it is meaningful beyond the authors opinion. And lastly, I am sad to see how this discussion started with a deletion and not in the discussion page where I didn't see anyone writing anything but me... Talgalili (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I undid your re-organization that grouped comments by whether they were deletes or keeps and counted them: AfDs are not settled by vote-counting, so the numbering is a step in the wrong direction — see WP:AFDEQ. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Thanks David - it is good to know. Talgalili (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There may be something more to be said, but it would be better placed in piecewise regression analysis than having a separate article. At present neither succeeds in communicating anything meaningful, let alone useful. Also, the publications cited are conference proceedings I think, but these might be referried. Melcombe (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment After second reviewing - I agree with your point. I changes my vote to delete - but would like to encourage the writer to try and add his insights into the piecewise regression analysis article. Talgalili (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and an unnecessary fork from piecewise regression analysis. Melcombe (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever else this is, it lacks sufficient context to even begin to evaluate whether there's a concept worthy of an article here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 2 February 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.