Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernoulli stochastics


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Bernoulli stochastics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be an article describing a neologism by reference to primary sources including PhD theses. It is basically the work of one user, who has written several closely-related articles. The principal source cited in these articles is Elart von Collani, who runs a company called Stochastikon. The company name matches the username of the article author. Who has never, as far as I can see, edited any article without including a reference to Elart von Collani. Guy (Help!) 00:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for all of these connected nominations; they all form one big walled garden of original research with no independent verifiability. I've been meaning to nominate these myself for months and just haven't felt able to commit the time to see it through.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also worth adding to the pile, in my opinion, are Causal Thinking and Quantification of randomness (by the same creator), and maybe others I haven't noticed.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Blatant self-promotion, tiresomely covering the same ground as other instances of the same (e.g., Bernoulli space). Fails WP:PRIMARY and WP:GNG. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Junk and original research like the rest of this walled garden. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Promotional original research, fails GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete blatant WP:OR and promotion of primary source. I am in support of deleting all these OR articles by this user because they are all similar –Ammarpad (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2017 (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.