Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statistical benchmarking

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 no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical benchmarking[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete I don't deny that a process like statistical benchmarking exists, but does it need to be separate from Statistics, especially when it has no sources connected to the page? Tooncool64 (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm in a real quandary about this. The subject is definitely notable by Wikipedia standards, with a substantial literature. Statistics in general is also such an enormous subject that it's completely inappropriate to merge this into Statistics - we'd either have to compress statistical benchmarking to a meaningless sentence, or unbalance the overall Statistics article. This has to be a stand-alone. But the current article is painfully poor; it's got no citations, it explains the subject in a way that's unlikely to make sense to anyone who doesn't already know what it's trying to say, and it doesn't even offer any external links to help anyone who needs a more textbook-style approach. I don't want to delete it because the topic ought to be here, but I don't want it to linger like this for another 16 years without improvement. Evidence that there are sources out there: [1], [2] and numerous others. Elemimele (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT unless someone improves it rapidly. Clearly a notable term but we need a better page. JMWt (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could be salvaged as a reasonable stub if it were cut down to the first sentence and a few references were added. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While there are no "Keeps" here yet, there are editors who see some value in this article so I don't think a swift Delete is the optimum response at this point in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to benchmarking or benchmarking#Metric benchmarking Keep. I have done a google scholar and EBSCO search and found a total of five sources using the precise term. None of them define or describe the term, leading me to believe it is a neologism not meeting GNG. I will mention the essay section WP:JUSTNOTABLE. Even the current article reads: In statistics, benchmarking is .... The term to me seems to literally mean "benchmarking using statistics" which is, frankly, self-evident in any benchmarking process. And I concur none of the material can be salvaged; it is both too technical to be encyclopedic and unsourced. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem like a good redirect target; it's only about business, not about a general statistical technique.
The Google Scholar search linked above provides 700+ matches for the exact term statistical benchmarking, but not all of them apparently mean the same thing; sometimes the words are thrown about in a sense like "we used statistics to see whether we met our benchmarks", rather than "using auxiliary information to adjust the sampling weights used in an estimation process". XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies about the google scholar search, I must have made a mistake on my scholar search. Having another look, I found [3] which mentions that two statistical benchmarking techniques are data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier analysis, so I do think the redirect is a plausible target with the caveat that the current benchmarking article should really refer to both business and economics rather than just business. That being said, the two sources you provided about time series analysis for benchmarking have convinced me there is enough content to write about in a standalone article in summary style. Darcyisverycute (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stubbify drastically and perhaps focus on time-series analysis per the second of the links Elemimele provided above and [4][5]. XOR'easter (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Statistics. There are discussions of related topics like sampling under the "Statistical data" section in that article. Steven Walling • talk 21:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current content is unclear and uncited; what is the benefit of merging it anywhere? XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet and now we have three different suggested Merge or Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I added several sources to the bottom of the article (all taken from the Google Scholar search results). Duckmather (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2024 (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.