Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orders of magnitude (probability)


 * 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.  Sandstein  14:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude (probability)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A bizarre article (and a few of the sourced ines are unreliable) that fails WP:LISTN and is comprised of noble-synthesis of random data from a multitude of sources, irrelevant to one another. &#x222F; WBG converse 08:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously.  For example, see RfC, AfD.   Andrew D. (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The concept of this list is questionable, as probabilities aren't measured with SI units. Relevant information in the list is already included in the Standard deviation and gambling-related articles. —  Newslinger  talk   10:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * keep I think the idea of comparing different probabilities is an important one, and one we are notoriously bad at. There are some quite common comparisons of probabilities, say chance of accident while flying vrs crossing the road. For example compares chances of dying by different methods. Here is another infographic of different probabilities.  with a an equally random selection of items. The random nature of these items is actually helpful as we can compare things we have some intuition about with other things where our intuition is lacking. --Salix alba (talk): 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Scholarly sources, please. We hardly write entire articles on the basis that random science-blogs took an appreciation for comparing the values of different probabilities (people's amusement with numbers is quite a common thing).
 * And, even if we keep it, the article title need to be changed.
 * And, I have a fair guess that anything resemblant of the amauterish mathematics, pursued in the blogs would turn the article into a nightmare where anything and everything, every value of probability that has been calculated across the world, for innumerable cases and purposes, can be included and documented.Xoreaster wishes to bring in the poker-stuff, I can wish to bring in the several probability values of various parameters, as projected by our national economy reports.This's just endless. &#x222F; WBG converse 20:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't "wish to bring in the poker stuff"; it's already there. My point was that those items were currently unsourced, but easily sourceable. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article title is pretty terrible; the parenthetical disambiguation doesn't really make sense. Is "Orders of magnitude of probabilities" better? --JBL (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Or, "probabilities by order of magnitude"? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's better than mine, for sure :). --JBL (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , what's about my other points? &#x222F; WBG converse 09:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, as I said in my comment below, when I saw this AfD pop up I expected to vote "delete", but I found Salix alba's comment compelling. I don't see any particular reason that only academic sources should be required (that is certainly not a rule generally on WP), just good-quality sources that deal with the general concept of orders of magnitude of probabilities.  In particular, I think this also handles your last objection: the sourcing should have to relate actually to the subject of the article (orders of magnitudes of probabilities), not just probability in general.  Of course an article like this will attract cruft that will need to be cleaned out from time to time -- but the same is true of almost every list article (and it is one reason I am a list skeptic).  But I think in this case it is easy to see what the standard for inclusion should be.  --JBL (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * To my surprise, keep. I am a skeptic of list articles generally, and this one has some pretty ridiculous entries and should be cleaned up, but I think Salix alba's comment is pretty compelling.  It's certainly true that one can find sourcing on the general topic of comparing probabilities of rare events.  --JBL (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with JBL here: I think this one is a keep, and I'm a bit surprised by that. The sourcing needs improvement, I expect that references for the unreferenced can be turned up without too much difficulty: for example, poker probability is a whole thing, and those numbers check out. Some items may need additional caveats, but the fundamental premise is sound. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This article has useful information, and the majority of it is referenced. — Eli355 ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   23:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Admittedly mostly because I really like it (and, at the same time, see no actual violations of list guidelines). Sourcing needs a major overhaul, and unsourced entries should simply be removed or replaced with the trivial transliteration. But overall this is highly informative - kind of like a reverse phone book search for likelihood. Seems worth keeping and improving. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is rather well-referenced, even if it needs an overhaul. Leo1pard (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced, at least in current form. Is a reasonable topic for an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2018 (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.