Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N = 1 fallacy


 * 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   redirect to  pseudoreplication. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

N = 1 fallacy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Essentially original research with conflict of interest (see talk page and article creator) and zero evidence of notability. Concept originally published in a paper related to malaria in 2003, could not find a single independent source after that date. The article in question has been cited 30 times according to google scholar, but only in malaria articles (high citation field it appears), I see no evidence that the "n=1 fallacy" has been used seriously outside its original article (zero true positive hits in search engines). Boffob (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just a rediscovery of a well known statistical issue with a new name. pseudoreplication generally encompasses this issue. I'd say unless (until?) the meme catches on the the secondary literature with this name, this does not meet the notability guidelines. I'd propose changing it to a redirect to pseudoreplication. 018 (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's "original research" in the sense intended in Wikipedia's OR policy, since it was published in a refereed journal before it appeared in Wikipedia. Conflict of interest seems like a relatively minor issue that shouldn't be considered automatically fatal.  I remember thinking the article was unclearly written.  In such cases, ideally one would judge its merits after that problem has been corrected.  Maybe if I'm feeling ambitious, I'll look at the published article within the next few days and see if I can clarify the article after that. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the issue with it being original research is that it's the authors of the paper who made the wiki article (there was a "copyright" issue because at first it was apparently a direct copy of the published material), and that there is no evidence of notability. You can't use Wikipedia to promote your own papers that were accepted in refereed journals. If it was indeed notable, "n=1 fallacy" would have appeared elsewhere in reliable sources and picked up by other scholars, in contexts outside of malaria. I find no evidence of that whatsoever.--Boffob (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You linked to original research, but you seem to have misunderstood it. If says:
 * The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources.
 * That's what "original research" means according to Wikipedia's policy on it. It means research published originally within Wikipedia.  That's not what this is; it was published first by a refereed scholarly journal. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I counted it as OR because the authors are the ones who created the article. It might be debatably within the OR guidelines because it was published first elsewhere, but it is not within the guidelines with respect to notability (and notability is the main concern when it comes to deletion) and advertizing of the authors' own research. --Boffob (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is unclear, and I'm wondering if someone here might be able to help clarify it. It looks as if the fallacy they're writing about may be the same thing as confounding? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think 018 is right, it seems to be pseudoreplication under another name. Now that article, though it could use more sources, is much easier to read.--Boffob (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the article seems to define the topic as pseudoreplication, but much of the explanation and the final example seem to be about a particular form of quasi-experiment. A very muddled piece of work. The original source is a little clearer, although the example is essentially identical, and it does appear that pseudoreplication is what's meant. --Avenue (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to pseudoreplication. The presentation here is sufficiently unclear that merging it would be a bad idea, unless it is reworked substantially along the way. --Avenue (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Partial merge. The N = 1 fallacy article at least has the advantage of having several references (which could reasonably be retained) while pseudoreplication has only one. Plus it at least has some meaningful context rather than the entirely dry theoretical stuff in pseudoreplication. In addition, N = 1 fallacy  has two articles making "real" links to it, while pseudoreplication has none, so presumably some people have thought is contains something useful.  And there is the question of categories ...it seems important that Category:Misuse of statistics be retained, and possibly some of the others: at present there is no overlap of categories at all. Melcombe (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * SMERGE to pseudoreplication. Presently, the two articles are on the same topic with no distinguishing features. I prefer the pseudoreplication name better, but have no strong preference. -Atmoz (talk) 20:17, 17 October 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.