Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weighted least squares

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 Redirect to Least_squares#weighted_least_squares. Black Kite 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weighted least squares (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View log)

The contents of this article are now covered in least squares, linear least squares and non-linear least squares, so there is no need for a separate article. Petergans (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete / merge. Can also be covered under regression analysis. Shyamal (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This can be handled using the merge templates ({{merge}}) and talk pages, no need for AfD. --Itub (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep weighted least squares is a very common technique in statistics, with about half a milloin google hits. This page provides a handy place for people to look for information on this specific topic. In the other articles the mention of weighting is slight and hidden in the text. The other articles present a move universal framework which WLS is part of. As WLS is such a well used technique it deserves its own article to concentrate on that particular aspect. --Salix alba (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect a redirect to the new least squares#weighted least squares section seems fine. --Salix alba (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This should be handled as a merge suggestion, not a deletion. If the content is no longer needed, then the page should become a redirect or something analogous to a disambiguation page. A deletion would destroy the page history. The topic of this article is inherently notable, and the current content is good. As far as the merge proposal goes, I would vote merge since the current content is completely subsumed in the other articles, but I am open to the current article being expanded and the material in the other articles merged INTO this one, and the other articles using the {{main}} article template. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep where it is and improve. While the article on nonlinear least squares and others do have some information on weighted least squares, the topic is important enough to have its own article rather than forcing the reader to read bits and pieces through other articles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Petergans wrote Least_squares#Weighted_least_squares, I think this article can be redirected there as this one is not so well written. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge to least squares. The weighting is not mathematically or statistically "significant". (Sorry about the pun, but not very.) Perhaps a different article could discuss the choice of weighting factors, if that discussion would make least squares too long. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Just to clarify my proposal: I did intend that the page become a redirect to least squares. WP-inexperienced! Petergans (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think anyone actually wants the article "deleted", so this AfD could possibly be closed. I don't see anything which shouldn't be in least squares, though, and it's not that big. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a section on weighted least squares to least squares. This contains all the information that is currently in weighted least squares and more. That article is now redundant and can be made into a redirect. OK? Petergans (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be consensus for redirect to least squares. Administrator action needed. Petergans (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. :) You need to wait for 5 days, then an administrator will decide what to do. There should be more information at WP:AfD on policy. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if redirect were consensus, which is not clear, it would be done by normal editing, not requiring admin intervention. The only thing we would need one for is to delete the article at weighted least squares, which should not be done: we should at least have the redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and do not merge. The detailed treatment of WLS, and its statistical justification, is better spun out in a separate article like this one, than jammed into already overloaded articles on unweighted least squares. Better to keep as a spin off, linked from a short summary and a {{main}} in the more general articles. Jheald (talk) 14:47, 17 February 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.