Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalog of articles in probability theory


 * 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The result was   withdrawn by nominator, no other delete votes. — Kusma talk 18:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Catalog of articles in probability theory

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Nonstandard article, with nonstandard editing rules and techniques. Seems to fundamentally break several core policies. It is also self/wikipedia referential in the lead, and completely redundant with all the other lists, indexes, etc. Verbal chat  11:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Verbal" would it be at all possible for you to notice that "non" is a prefix rather than a stand-alone word? I've actually seen this usage in Wikipedia a number of times and wondered if it's begun to occur elsewhere in the world besides in Wikipedia as well.  I don't know where this novel usage is coming from. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where that came from, perhaps I intended to write something else and then changed my mind, and in updating added the space. Verbal chat  17:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. We have other bot-edited articles like list of mathematics articles, which have obvious usefulness to the reader. Each letter-indexed sub-article there, like List of mathematics articles (M) is updated by User:Mathbot. The intro of this article can be edited, and the editing instructions moved to a comment, or better to a warning box (I'd do the latter myself, but I don't know how). We had a similar situation some months back with the main template used in list of mathematics articles containing editor-oriented links, and it wasn't solved by deleting the article(s). This AfD is proposing to throw the baby out with the water. Pcap ping  11:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Clarification: the bot-related procedure as well as the three letter codes (in the user-visible index) appear unnecessary to me in this case, but that's not a reason to delete. We can argue on the best way of updating it on talk page. Pcap  ping  13:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fix or move to portal space. This is currently mostly meta-information, with an introduction aimed at editors ("how to edit this") rather than readers and including information about how linked the topics are. As such, it doesn't belong in article space. The current list is full of special abbreviations that could need more human editing, not a prohibition of it. Until this is a proper article, it should be moved to a subpage of the mathematics portal (that is what portals are for: mixing reader-oriented and editor-oriented information). — Kusma talk 11:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you object to. We have a lot of article-space indexes in Category:Indexes of articles. Pcap ping  13:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * None of these pages belongs in article space. They're useful, but not articles. But that problem can't be fixed by a single AFD. — Kusma talk 14:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kusma, we've been over your silly point before. To say these are aimed primarily at editors is nonsense.  They're aimed at people who browse.  To browse is to read without having in mind specific questions whose answers you seek, just trying to see what's out there.  Someone proposed moving the lists of mathematics topics to the portal space.  Opinion against it was unanimous. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do indeed believe that navigational tools do not belong in article space. The majority may believe otherwise, but I don't see how this makes the point silly. — Kusma talk 17:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: We also have a manually-edited List of probability topics. Pcap ping  12:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Why is this bot-updated? Unlike list of mathematics articles this isn't built from categories or the like, but rather User:CataBotTsirel merely parses source and source2. The transformations from source(s) don't seem complex enough to warrant a bot or the unusual abbreviations: the first source is just an alphabetical list of topics each tagged with some codes which get listed in the proper sections defined in source2. I'd be a just a little more work to do that manually, i.e list a topic in all appropriate subsections. Also, the three-letter codes don't really convey any info to the reader. I hope the creator takes no offense, but this seems largely an exercise in geekness to me. Pcap ping  12:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer: Well, some geekness, maybe. However, do you really want to do the formatting manually (instead of the bot)? Try it once... Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer: Yes, three-letter codes help to an editor, not to a reader. I am sorry if this is bad. Surely I am ready to any reasonable change of the format (and the approach), not excluding deletion, if my experiment is unsuccessful. No problem for me. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Take Borel–Kolmogorov paradox for instance. It is listed as "Borel–Kolmogorov paradox iex cnd (2:CM)" in the first source. It gets listed under "Instructive examples (iex)" and "Conditioning (cnd)", but not at all under "... by number and type of random variables". I'm not even sure if that's a bug or a feature of your bot. I don't see why adding 2 (or 4) such links to the index is prohibitively difficult. Insofar you've been the only one to ever update the sources, so YMMV on how easy that is perceived in comparison. Pcap ping  13:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "if that's a bug or a feature of your bot" – a feature, believe me.
 * "you've been the only one to ever update the sources" – (sigh) You are right. Probably it is better to retire the bot. However, I am lazy to do the manual work; hope others are not. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep. Definitely non standard as far as editing, intro and maintainance are concerned, but as long as the result is useful or beneficial for readers and violating fundamental project goals/principles, i don't quite see the need for deletion. Aside from being "non standard" I fail to see a serious breach of core policies that really matters (i.e. is harmful for the project goals). In addition some if the non standard behaviour can be addressed without requiring a deletion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but retire the bot. The list can clearly serve a useful purpose both for readers and editors.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's definitely a useful article. I say this as a reader, and not an editor (I don't edit articles on probability theory). I do, as part of my research, have to understand things in probability theory, for which this article is really helpful. Perhaps it violates Wikipedia policy, and I have no good ideas on how to fix that, but this article is an asset to Wikipedia, and thus invoking WP:IAR I strongly feel it should be kept. I think one of the things that bothers people is the use of cryptic abbreviations like "iex". Perhaps you could just program the bot (or do a search and replace) to just have full names everywhere? This would bloat the article, but make it more useful for the reader who wants know how to bound the sum of finitely many binary random variables, and would see "Chernoff bound / (Finite:Binary)". --Robin (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliment and the advice. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot issue is irrelevant to the question of deleting the page. There is a well-established precedent for lists of articles in a particular field (Category:Indexes_of_articles). So I don't see any reason to delete this list. On the other hand, the bot should be set so that it accommodates manual edits to the page (for example, by detecting them and copying them each time the page is updated). This would make the page more user friendly, but is not a deletion issue. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If the strange editing conditions and the bot are removed, I'll remove my nomination. Thanks, Verbal chat  15:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A natural question, then: what you do if the strange editing conditions are removed while the bot is rather upgraded according to the idea of Carl (above)? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * the bot should simply be removed, it does nothing useful now the page is populated. It adds a non-standard way to edit the page, while not allowing standard editing. The codes should also be removed. The bot and editing rules breaking policy are a very big problem if this is to remain in mainspace. If you want it kept either disable the bot or move it from mainspace. Verbal chat  16:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did you read the Carl's idea? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, my reply is the same. Remove the editing conditions and the codes, or move it to project/userspace. The bot isn't a huge problem, but the odd rules etc are. Verbal chat  16:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with Carl about manually changing the list. Boris Tsirelson should be thanked for creating this very useful list; however, it should be made compatible with manual edits. Mathsci (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with MathSci. So long as manual editing is allowed, the codes removed, and the bot disabled until suitably modified, this list should be kept. It should possibly be renamed along more standard lines ("List of" or "Index of"). Verbal chat  17:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Really obvious KEEP. One of Wikipedia's most magnificent achievements is the lists of mathematics topics, which is formerly a featured list (eventually de-featured for lack of references, although it is questionable whether it should have its own references rather than rely on those in the pages listed there).  Here are some questions that I would like "Verbal" to answer:
 * What should replace this article in the lists of mathematics topics if this article is deleted?
 * Which "core policies" do you claim this article breaks?
 * Why didn't you say which "core policies" you had in mind when you nominated this for deletion?
 * Which particular "rules" and "techniques" in this article do you consider "non standard" [sic]?
 * Why can't its "non standard" [sic] nature be remedied by editing?
 * Specifically which other articles in the lists of mathematics topics would you delete for the same reasons? For example,


 * ... and there are numerous other headings there. "Verbal", please be completely specific about your reasons in each of these cases. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Michael Hardy, 1, I agree it was more the bot I had problems with and ban on editing the page normally. This page could be replaced by this page without the bot, or one of the other lists of probability articles. 2, The editing policies, 3, I thought it was obvious, 4, The ban on editing 5, The lead implied it couldn't be edited as it would break the article, 6, Any that denied usual editing should have that restriction removed. As a request, please don't put my handle in quotes - it's rude. Thanks, Verbal chat  17:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WITHDRAWN Can someone who knows how propoerly close this discussion as "withdrawn by nominator". Thanks, Verbal</b> chat  17:36, 6 December 2009 (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.