Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generalized additive model for location, scale, and shape


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Generalized additive model for location, scale, and shape

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This page appears to be pure WP:OR and it is written like an essay paper. There are no speedy deletion criteria for essays, so AFD it is. While the title gets some google hits, I'm not sure this is being written from a third-party, neutral, encyclopedic standpoint; as such, I'm nominating on the grounds of pure WP:OR and slight WP:ADVERT and/or WP:NEO. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 12:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Response from original author: Dear Timneu22, Although I respect your concerns I must point out that they are in error. GAMLSS is an original methodology in statistics that is based on numerous published econometric papers (see notes on relevant page for references). In the same spirit many articles would have to be removed, e.g. Generalized additive model, Generalized linear model. I recommend that an impartial third party with knowledge of statistics and/or econometrics be consulted. Thank you for your time. UPDATE: I have taken a closer look at the article and I understand why you feel the way you do. I have changed the language in order to accommodate (as possible) your concerns. telemax 19 May 2010
 * Much of it is still written in the second person, and there are links to "our manual" and such. Still appears to be a forum for advertising. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Just needs a lot of editing, but it appears it will be generally useful. Melcombe (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done some major editing to the file. In particular, it is now clearly not WP:OR since it refers to two specific original published sources (one of which is a published read paper to the U.K. Royal Statistical Society). telemax 19 May 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep. The "advertising" objection was the only one that had any merit and that has been remedied by subsequent editing.  The "essay" criterion is the most thoughtlessly applied of all criteria for deletion or for anything else within Wikipedia, and this seems typical of that trend.  As for "OR", this cites refereed journal publications; it's not something appearing for the first time here. Michael Hardy (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google Scholar says the 2005 paper in JRSSB has been cited 119 times, and gives 175 hits for "Generalized additive model for location, scale, and shape" OR GAMLSS so this is clearly notable and clearly not WP:original research. Article has now been edited to remove any resemblance to an WP:advert or WP:essay. Qwfp (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the Google result above. The article's sourcing should be improved; at present the article seems to be based only on publications by the technique's originators, so it could at first glance be seen as mere self-promotion. Coverage in third-party sources should be referenced, and the Google result suggests this shouldn't be difficult to do. --Avenue (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2010 (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.