Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homogeneity

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. Mailer Diablo 21:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homogeneity

This article seems to be totally unintelligible to some mathematically astute WP editors, I have serious concerns about the history of edits of this article (some major contributions by 'Cruise' or 'David Cruise' and links to external sites which mention 'D. Krus') In its current state, the article is quite possibly OR, and fails to give any sensible definitions of the concepts it claims to be about. Madmath789 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Conditional keep I'm not an advanced math guy, but the history suggests that this has been taken seriously by a number of editors and expanded. It would be good to get a statistics expert to take a peek at it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete it sounds like an application of Homogeneous space to stat but my statistics classes weren't that good and they were a while ago now. --Pboyd04 01:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have moved the material that WAS at homogeneous to homogeneity and redirected homogeneous to homogeneity, and moved what WAS at homogeneity to homogeneity (statistics) and added a cleanup tag. That that is how the material should be apportioned among the article titles is obviously required by simple common sense. So a question arises: Should this AFD tag be put on homogeneity (statistics)? I've only superficially glanced at the material; it appears to be one of those things used in statistics applied to psychology that are better-known among statisticians in psychology departments than anyone else. More later... Michael Hardy 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Confused issue Hmm - I think that has somewhat muddied the waters, and I am not sure that moving an article in the middle of an AfD discussion was best thing to do. The material which I think is utter gobble-de-gook, and which caused the original AfD is now at: homogeneity (statistics). I am a reasonably competent mathematician, and have taught statistics for many years, but this article seems to be almost meaningless pseudo-maths, and has already been described by other editors of maths articles as "whacky" and "... like abracadabra ... ". What is the next step? should I tag homogeneity (statistics) as AfD? Madmath789 14:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment probably simplest to withdraw this AfD and start a new one for homogeneity (statistics). The two current votes could be copied across. I generally agrees with Hardy that Homogeneity should be a disambig page or a redirect to one. --Salix alba (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep following discussion here and on my talk page it seemed simplest to withdraw this AfD and list a new one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homogeneity (statistics). The current content of Homogeneity is now an uncrotriversal disambig page. --Salix alba (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This is now a sensible page - All the questionable material is now covered by a new AfD. Madmath789 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although I'm not sure it's speedy, as there are a number of non-withdrawn delete votes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

comment I believe the non-withdrawn votes were for the previous version of this page - which was moved to homogeneity (statistics) - maybe the votes should have been moved to the new AfD, since they are not really applicable to the new (and sensible) homogeneity article? Madmath789 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep the new disambiguation. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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.