Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Null model


 * 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. Accuracy and clarity are concerns for cleanup. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Null model

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The contents of this page are inaccurate and confusing. While null model is a widely used term in statistics and perhaps in other fields, where it may mean different things than in statistics, in network sciences the meaning of null model is the same that in statistics: a way of expressing non-existing structure, the baseline product of randomness that researchers strive to reject. With that meaning, it is frequently used in place of Null hypothesis. Furthermore, the particular realization of null model alluded in this page already has a well fleshed Wikipedia article: Random graph. The only reference provided is relevant to Network Sciences in general but in that paper neither the words "null" or "model" appear, much less both of them together, so I regard it as an invalid source. My opinion is that "null model" in Wikipedia should just be a redirect to Null hypothesis Alcides (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 14:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep (per WP:SK "The nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action"). Redirection does not require deletion or administrator intervention. It sounds to me like you have the necessary knowledge to turn this into a useful page, and you yourself assert the notability of the topic. A disambiguation page might be appropriate, or a redirect as you suggest. —Noiratsi (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Noiratsi. Best thing is to go ahead and sort things out. Thincat (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep (per WP:SK "The nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action"). Seconded.  The claim is that the page is a mess not that it should be deleted.  Neonchameleon (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. The article reflects a total misunderstanding of the literature. As noted by the nom, null model simply means null hypothesis, even in graph theory, which makes this a WP:CFORK full of errors, and one that should be deleted. -- 101.119.25.193 (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I also note that the article title does not even occur in the cited reference. -- 101.119.25.193 (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Null model and null hypothesis are not synonymous concepts. While null hypotheses often contain explicit or implicit null models, null models are used outside of statistical hypothesis testing. For instance, in frequentist statistics, likelihood ratios are computed against null models that may or may not be part of some hypothesis. Similarly in Bayesian model comparison, models are judged by comparing the Bayesian evidence for each model, with no explicit hypothesis to be accepted or rejected, just a measure of explanatory power. This article seems a WP:COATRACK for a particular null model in a single network paper, but the topic of a null model is notable and different than that of null hypothesis. --Mark viking (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Mark viking, can you provide a primary or secondary reference to the concept of null model? If so, I'm all for keeping the article and changing the contents to match that concept. Otherwise, rather than have wrong content showing as first entry in Google's search results, I think it is better to have none at all. Alcides (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2013 (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.