Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checking if a coin is fair

Add links
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 keep. Yuser31415 01:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking if a coin is fair[edit]

Checking if a coin is fair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Violates WP:NOT as Wikipedia is not a How-to. Recommend transwiki and then delete this article. SocratesJedi | Talk 20:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article is somewhat how-to-like, but I think some of the information could be useful, if merged into a suitable article (perhaps coin flipping or a probability article). So merge and/or transwiki (where would it be transwikied to, Wikibooks?) – Qxz 20:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibooks sounds reasonable. Other suggestions? -SocratesJedi | Talk 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 07:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't agree that this is a "how-to" article. It's explaining how to apply statistical testing procedures to answer a question. But that doesn't make it a "how-to" article. On the basis of the reasoning that underlies this nomination, every single Wikipedia article on mathematical and statistical subjects ought to be deleted, since math is always about "how to" use logic in some context or another. Oh -- does anybody read the History pages in these debates? This article originated back in 2005 by being split out of coin flipping. DavidCBryant 14:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. This is not a how-to article, any more than the articles on (say) Euclid's algorithm or Float glass are. -- Dominus 15:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per the reasons given by David. .V. [Talk|Email] 16:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It needs sources though to not be original research. ~ trialsanderrors 17:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It lacks sources for one really simple reason. It is mathematically nonsense. (Igny 03:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep for reasons given by David. This article is entirely in our domain. I can't believe the Wikibooks readers would want it. Kla'quot 17:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Note the coin flipping article references a scientific and mathematical investigation by Persi Diaconis (which perhaps should be directly cited in this article as well). Or do we need to clear out more article space for Pokémon characters?! --KSmrqT 01:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But, please, can someone add one of the zillion available references to this, even some college probabilities textbook handily on your shelf? People who have not studied probabilities don't realize the obsession with this fair coin, fair die, fair bet that statisticians and mathematicians have, and how prevalent the literature is on the topic. References would forestall a lot of these discussions. PS It is, indeed, written like a how-to, and this, too, needs changed. KP Botany 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something more appropriate, e.g. Statistical bias detection and rewrite from the perspective of that subject, keeping current text as an example. Only the title of this article is problematic; the content is perfectly reasonable. JulesH 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've rewritten the "preamble" section (I probably ought to retitle it, also, but didn't think of anything appropriate while I was at it). I've also added one reference, and I'll tie that in to the rest of it with <ref> tags in the next day or so. Someone else should have a look at the section I've rewritten to be sure I didn't make any misstatements. This article is very poorly written. The examples are reasonable, and the math is OK, but the prose is truly horrid. DavidCBryant 19:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is silly to construe the title literally and call this a how-to article. Anyone familiar with statistics knows that when one talks about "coin-tossing" one is usually talking about something more general. Michael Hardy 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But right now the article isn't being described in generality; it's a specific application. Specific applications and examples are fine in textbooks or even our sister project, Wikibooks, but it doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. Examples should be given only when they are absolutely required to clarify the meaning of an article. -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Think of it as an article on the posterior probability density function, but with a a more prosaic name, just as "coin-tossing" is prosaic for Bernoulli process. linas 01:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, but why not then just title it posterior prob density function and then write it in generality rather than on this particular example. It's not the idea that I'm objecting to; it's the style in which it's written that makes me believe it ought to be on wikibooks unless it undergoes a substantial rewrite. -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful as an entry-level article. Charles Matthews 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to fair coin. ~ trialsanderrors 21:29, 18 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Checking_if_a_coin_is_fair&oldid=1069807600"