Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep sampling

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. There is no consensus on whether to create a redirect or DAB. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep sampling

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

Notability is not shown and could not be found. The article is created by author of the theory. Russian version was deleted. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do see some reference to using a technique called "deep sampling" in some research papers, e.g., [1] [2], but not even sure it is the same thing. Rlendog (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is confusing and does not seem to be grounded in any sort of research other than one article. Very vague. Not even sure what the subject actually is. Russian language version seems like a stub also, although can't read Russian. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or create a DAB. This article looks like it was created by the author of the papers cited, but the term has not gained wide use beyond his papers. It is just another name for call stack sampling, which is discussed a little at Call stack#Inspection. A DAB is probably a better long term solution, because deep sampling is a concept in multiple fields, such as geology, soil science, electrical engineering (logic analyzers) and as Rlendog found above, genomic sequencing. --Mark viking (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The paper is unnotable, and the article is promotion of it (and FWIW, "each sample contains much information. The samples are taken approximately uniformly over the resource of interest" is almost contradictory). I mostly agree with Mark viking's analysis, except that no redirect or DAB link should be left towards call stack sampling just because some guy used the term in an unnotable research paper.

I could not really understand what "deep sampling" is from the papers above but it seems to be a term in genomics, if someone understands it better I have no opposition to a suitable redirect (or an article recreation).

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sampling (statistics) as another method, section 3 of that article. DeVerm (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really? It could be the same as Sampling (statistics)#Systematic sampling. (The fact that we are not sure because the article is not clear is a reason not to merge). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me}

Yes it really is. And no, it is not systematic sampling. Systematic is per definition not random. DeVerm (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But is DS really "random" when "The samples are taken approximately uniformly over the resource of interest"? If you know what the whole thing is, please do tell, because I cannot understand the article as is. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would argue for a redirect into Sampling (statistics)#Systematic sampling, if I could be sure that's what it is - it somewhat sounds like systematic sampling that takes a multi-parameter (hence deep) snapshot at sparse time-points, or something like that; but the article fails to make that clear. In the absence of sources that unambiguously define this usage, replacement with a DAB for known uses of the term, as per Mark viking, might be best.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect - Still questionable for its own article at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 13 May 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.