Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empirical statistical laws


 * 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. One two three... 08:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Empirical statistical laws

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I have nominated this article for deletion becuase it lacks any verifiable sources referencing the term "empirical statistical laws". Without sources, on the surface the term is self-contradicting; regression to the mean and so forth follow formally, they are not empirical laws. There is nothing to indicate the term is sufficiently prominent to warrant an entry. However, if there is a source that establishes prominence and justification for the term, it should be checked before deletion. Holon (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * delete as per nom, but also because all its interesting or useful content is already there in Category:Statistical laws. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * keep. First because none of its interesting or useful content is already there in Category:Statistical laws. Secondly, a citation has now been added. Thirdly, because none of the usual tags requesting adding of citations has ever been added until just after this nom. This is a brief article making some important points about articles in Category:Statistical laws, and putting them into a common grouping, but doesn't really deserve anything longer. I note that a search on Google on "statistical laws" produces 89.2 million hits, so that there is a need for the extra tag of "empirical" to distinguish the subset here from statutory laws related to collecting statistics and from probability distributions. Melcombe (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops, that should have been 30,000 for "statistical laws": my misinterpretation. Melcombe (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Empirical statistical law" returns 242 hits in Google, many of which stem from this article and none being prominent sources on statistics. A couple of sources using the term to refer to the concept of a statistical law does not justify an entry under that name. Holon (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Statistical law and Law of statistics both redirect to Empirical statistical laws, so further changes might be appropriate. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't realize -- I was just very surprised at the entry on an obscure term (that is to me an oxymoron). I really have no objection to "statistical laws" being the main article with its content. I would then edit the current article to make it clear that 'empirical statistical laws' has been used but shouldn't be taken as being prominent and in widespread usage. Holon (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But the bald term "statistical laws" means something much wider than intended here, and would essentially encompass the whole of statistics and much of science. Melcombe (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a category "Statistical laws" but not article, and this article is in the category. This seems an odd situation to me. Personally, I agree with SamuelTheGhost's comment, though as I say, I can see the merit in having a general article in which you could add a section. Holon (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Statistical laws (empirical) ? Jheald (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * keep as a list. The article serves the useful purpose of classifying statistical "laws" according to their mathematical foundation and truth. We learn that The Law of Large Numbers is firmly established in mathematical statistics, whereas The Law of Averages is false. This highlights the caution needed when a statistical "law" is cited.


 * "Empirical statistical laws" suggests that there are "theoretical statistical laws". I favor "Statistical laws" as the title.-- Palaeovia talk 11:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The terms "empirical statistical law" and "statistical law" are not in common use among mathematicians and scientists. The need for this article is therefore open to question. On reflection, I propose transferring the bulk of the content to a "List of statistical phenomena" or a "List of statistical laws", grouped according to the truth and mathematical status of the "laws". -- Palaeovia talk 00:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject seems valid.  Not sure if references were added after the AfD, but it seems adequately referenced.  Would defer to statistics experts as to what the title should be. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  15:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The more I read the this article, the more it seems to me to include original research, and the more dubious its discussions seem to be. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename to List of statistical laws. It's a valid summary article. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As currently written, the article certainly has weaknesses. Some things have theoretical bases, but were originally discovered empirically.  In fact, that was the status of the central limit theorem before the 1930s.  Benford's law also fits neatly into that category.  And maybe Zipf's law in the form in which it was first proposed by George Kingsley Zipf, concerning word frequencies, fits that pattern.  And Pareto's law on the distributions of income and wealth.  The phenomenon of empirically discovered statistical laws later acquiring theoretical justification certainly seems worth mentioning somewhere.  I'm not sure what form such an article should take. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:06, 3 August 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.