Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The rich get richer (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 delete. The "keep" opinions are merely assertions of notability, but do not address the sources (or the lack thereof), and do not cite any potentially relevant sources. Sandstein 08:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rich get richer (statistics)

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

No references and hopelessly vague. – S. Rich (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the rationale: 6 years and noone could provide any source. SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a well-known property of the
Dirichlet, CRP and Pitman–Yor prior distributions used in Bayesian statistics, especially, Bayesian clustering. See, for instance, An Alternative Prior Process for Nonparametric Bayesian Clustering. I'll see if I can help. --Mark viking (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment This search for "rich get richer" and Dirichlet seems to indicate that the phrase is indeed commonly used in this sense.[1] I don't know what standard to use to tell when a common teaching phrase for a set of concepts becomes notable in itself. Chris vLS (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable, it just needs to be cleaned up. See
WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePlatypusofDoom (talk • contribs) 12:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Notable enough to be a part of Wikipedia.Zedopuppy (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC) (Note: blocked user). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches are not finding anything outstandingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ We have The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If this is only an unnotable part of say the Dirichlet process then a mention of this should be there and what do you know, there already is. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I were however able to find many sources when I searched for "rich get richer dirichlet"; which also seemed to mention the effect not simply as a part of Dirichlet, but the Chinese restaurant process was often mentioned instead, like in our article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Is this a statistics article? Hard to tell without references. I've posted a note about this AfD on the WikiProject Statistics Talkpage. Maybe a project member can fix this article. – S. Rich (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with User:ThePlatypusofDoom, just clean it up. Benwing (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2016 (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.