Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statistical Methods for Research Workers

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --Aranda56 02:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical Methods for Research Workers[edit]

Not an encyclopedic article. No information on what's actually in the book. There might be a place for this information in Wikimedia; I'm open to suggestions. --Fang Aili 20:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a signifcant book in the history of statistics. Good lord, we have every Jessica Simpson album, why can't we have a book on something that has actually contributed to society? Dunc|☺ 20:21, 7 Setember 2005 (UTC)

You may be right (your comment about Jessica Simpson is compelling), but the article doesn't even assert that the book is notable, or how it has affected anything. Ostensibly the book has been read by people, but does that make it inherently notable? --Fang Aili 20:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it's one of the most important books in the history of statistics. Dunc|☺ 20:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but I wouldn't know that by reading what was there when I first nominated the article. --Fang Aili 22:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dunc; maybe Dunc can provide more info? Sdedeo 21:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google search turns up plenty of notability, as stated by Dunc. I added a couple notes to the article, but it needs more... --Daedalus-Prime 21:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Dunc's nailed it. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Weak article about very notable book. Still in print after 80 years. 20,000 Google hits on exact phrase. Top hit is the full text online on a site entitled "Classics in the History of Psychology." I'm pretty sure (at the 5% level of significance) that this was the book that introduced the chi-square test to the research community. Jessica who? Oh, is she Bart's sister? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. Don't knock the nominator. The original article sounded like it was just some random textbook. Nominators don't need to be subject matter experts, that's exactly why we have AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Dunc and Dpbsmith. Guettarda 02:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep this arcane evil book of villany and undergraduate torture... I mean this important text on statistics. (Can you tell my least favourite subject at uni?) Sabine's Sunbird 02:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to Daedalus-Prime for updating the article to indicate the book's notability. Given that it's certainly worthy of an article, I withdraw the VfD. --Fang Aili 16:02, 8 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.