Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMS (statistical method)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

MMS (statistical method)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertisement for a recent journal article; see Talk page. fgnievinski (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Based only on a single primary source in a journal of dubious quality that has been cited only once, by its own authors. WP:TOOSOON to have gained any academic impact. Fails WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:OR at its best. Note that the creator also modified the article Outlier with a series of (not really) minor edits to add this method in there. I advocate deleting the resulting mention there as well. Tigraan Click here to contact me 10:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Not quite OR since it has been published elsewhere. However, also not notable (yet). If it does become notable in the future, we don't want the article tainted with COI and advocacy. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for now, or userfy. Too soon sums it up. Bearian (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as still nothing for a better solid Wikipedia article, not yet acceptable. SwisterTwister   talk  04:46, 7 May 2016 (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.