Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Testing hypotheses suggested by the data
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was speedy keep; nomination withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Testing hypotheses suggested by the data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This article is basically a how-to, and violates WP:NOR as well, which clashes with what Wikipedia is not. Orthologist 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Changed to Speedy Keep. With hindsight, I think that this article adresses a substantially independent topic and needs not redirect to any article.--Orthologist 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Content is clearly inappropriate per nom, but a redirect of the title to either data snooping bias, data dredging (both in See also), or to selection bias makes sense. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But is such a long and implausible redirect needed? It doesn't meet with standard redirect uses.--Orthologist 17:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If a redirect of a phrase that long goes against some Wikipolicy, then that is a good argument not to do it. Regardless, and certainly in lieu of that, the phrase itself actually is used in statistical parlance, and thus is not an arbitrary made-up-one-day phrase. Let's see what others say. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems you are right. I'm now convinced this should be made into a redirect, as I understand that it is a phrase like "correlation does not imply a causation".--Orthologist 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to update your nomination then? It might facilitate the process. Or you could wait and see what other input comes in. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems you are right. I'm now convinced this should be made into a redirect, as I understand that it is a phrase like "correlation does not imply a causation".--Orthologist 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If a redirect of a phrase that long goes against some Wikipolicy, then that is a good argument not to do it. Regardless, and certainly in lieu of that, the phrase itself actually is used in statistical parlance, and thus is not an arbitrary made-up-one-day phrase. Let's see what others say. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:17, 30 March 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.