Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N-increasing

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 redirect to Copula (probability theory)#Definition. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

N-increasing[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random math tutorials. I believe WP:NOTHOWTO is the relevant guideline. ^King Jakob _C2 01:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- 202.124.89.4 (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I object to the nominator's rationale. The issue is not WP:NOTHOWTO, but rather that the concept does not seem to meet our notability guideline. It could be that this concept is significant in some larger context, but without that context it's just a nonce. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Copula (probability theory)#Definition This topic is part of the definition of a copula and is the same as d-increasing in the definition in the Copula article. I'd say merge as well, but it is not clear that the definition would be improved with this material. --Mark viking (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is clearly incorrect: this is not a tutorial, and issues connected with the way the articleis written should be fixed by normal editing anyway. The issue, as Sławomir Biały points out, is notability. There are 31 hits for "N-increasing" on ZMATH, going back to this in 1965, translation here. This seems to establish notability. Spectral sequence (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those hits appear to be unrelated to the topic of this article, though. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article needs to be (re-)written in a way which is consistent with the definition in reliable sources. Spectral sequence (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a completely different article. Nothing is stopping anyone from writing an article about something completely different. But that has little bearing on this article and this AfD. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably this should be redirected to copula (probability theory) or some section of that article for now. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 04:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Copula (probability theory). The article is most certainly not a how-to or a tutorial: it's a dictionary definition. Dricherby (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Copula (probability theory) per previous comments. Andrew³²⁷ 12:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some routine cleanups on the article. I would not be particularly averse to keeping the article, but if it is not kept, I think it's clear that it should be redirected to copula (probability theory). It is a valid concept that can be clearly explained in an article, but perhaps it is used only when thinking about copulas. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2013 (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.