Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudo data

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 without prejudice against creation of a sourced and meaningful article. ~ trialsanderrors 08:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo data

Pseudo data (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Linkless, unreferenced, totally disputed as to whether the term has any validity; I've been asking for months on its talk page for someone to justify this and no one has. Jmabel | Talk 06:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• On the talk page you put forward the idea of rewriting the article to be about what are actually known, in the field of statistics, as pseudo data. You can do that using sources such as this article on statistics, this statistical article on a particular type of pseudo-data, this statistical modelling article that demonstrates a use of pseudo-data, the several sources about the concept of pseudo-data in statistics that are cited in section 1.1 of this article, and several others. Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics should be able to help. Uncle G 10:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect the relevant parts to Simulation#Engineering (Technology) simulation or Process simulation. Google returns over 38,000 hits on the term, few or none of which (except Wikipedia) refer to the meaning as alleged in this article. As mentioned by Jmabel on the talk page the meaning is overwhelmingly "faked-up date used for testing software" (etc). Tonywalton  | Talk 10:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep but rewrite. The term seems quite widely used in various stastics papers and could warrent a good treatment. Current article has little worth keeping. I've mention this on WT:WPM. --Salix alba (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite; the phenomenon of psuedodata (particularly pseudocounts) is real and encyclopedic. Alba 14:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (or perhaps Merge) and rewrite This is a real topic in statistics. The current form of the page has to go though. Merging into another page would be viable as well, as this is somewhat specialized. Baccyak4H 14:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's an obscure (yet notable) topic. I guess I could see a merge with rediect being a viable option as well. →Bobby← 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to later creation of a meaningful article or disambiguation page with this title. The present article is entirely original research using the title as a neologism for any inaccurate information, which covers none of the common uses. This unencyclopedic treatment must not be kept around as a kind of stopgap until an uncertain promise about another, entirely unrelated article is fulfilled.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the present article: I'd have no problem with someone either replacing this with an appropriate redirect or with writing an appropriate article at this title, but I believe there is nothing at this title worth saving. In either of the suggested scenarios (redirect or complete rewrite) I see no reason to keep any of the present material. - Jmabel | Talk 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The current content and the history offers no help toward the creation of the legitimate article that the keep opinions seem to desire. As the current content is useless for the creation of a legitimate article, it should be deleted. No prejudice against an encyclopedic article on the legitimate statistical and software testing subject(s). GRBerry 16:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsupported WP:NEO, and I've never seen an article with quite so many strikes against it! Pete Fenelon 01:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect, no prejudice against recreation We need reliable sources before I'll believe what this article says; based on the comments above, a redirect or possibly even a dab page may be in order. --ais523 14:56, 13 November 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.