Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematical statistics

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 Defer to merge discussion. per

WP:IAR is invoked. Editors who have participated here are strongly encouraged to participate in the merge discussion. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Mathematical statistics

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

This was not originally AFD'd by me, but I'm completing the entry for it since that step wasn't performed.

This article topic has exactly the same scope as

maximum likelihood

estimation.

So, in a nutshell, I have no clue what content would belong in either mathematical statistics or statistics that doesn't also belong in the other. Unless there's some non-definitional aspect of mainstream^‡ statistics which is not supported by a mathematical axiom or based upon a formal proof, then I suggest that mathematical statistics be WP:merged and deleted or just deleted.

NOTE:I'll concede this AFD if someone provides me just a SINGLE example of what I'm asserting doesn't exist.

^‡ By mainstream, I mean something I would expect at least a handful of highly-rated statistics doctoral program teach to their PhD students; since, if a concept isn't taught to (and hence, known by) statisticians, then I'd argue that it's pretty hard to call it statistics. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

If articles are of the same scope but not the same content then the proper action is merge and redirect, not delete. But that discussion is already underway at Talk:Statistics#Proposed merge with Mathematical statistics. Whatever the outcome, to merge or not, the article should not be deleted, so the outcome of that discussion will render this deletion nomination moot. Speedy close as inappropriate given the already underway discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've heard of "WP:merge and delete", right? I just did one yesterday at Diabetes and testosterone (follow the link for the deletion log).Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note I've removed the non-standard formatting from your initial post; bold has a particular purpose in deletion discussions and so should not be used elsewhere in comments. 'big' is even more unusual and really not needed. If you want to make your point stand out then use clear concise language, not extra HTML formatting.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. To my understanding, bold is simply used to emphasize a position statement after a bullet point, which was why I delineated the proposal and the comments with the discussion header. I'm assuming the relevant policy for AFD is a

WP:TPG subsection or one of its links, but could you link it for me? I'm assuming you know it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 19:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Italics can be used for emphasis: the relevant part of the TPG is 'Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out, using standard indentation and formatting conventions'. Using anything else such as big, bold and underline will tend to swamp other editors contributions, and should be avoided on talk pages. Bold especially has a particular use in deletion and other discussions, to highlight !votes and points of order. Using bold anywhere else makes it much harder to spot such !votes and other points.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case there is almost no difference between merging and deleting, because the two articles are of such uneven length. Redirecting would be perfectly fine with me. Anyway, I've contributed in the merger discussion just now and I'm repeating here that I haven't seen any good arguments for keeping two articles separate. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2014 (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.