Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantitative parasitology


 * 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. Tone 09:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Quantitative parasitology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not a biostatistician, but it seems to me that this article has been taken over by and turned into a not-so-subtle advertisement for a particular software. The topic itself might merit an article, but at this point I don't see much in this article other than description of features of that QP software. bender235 (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am not sure I agree with this characterization. If you stripped out the 'Available Software' section you would have a rather generic description of some of the approaches to this that is similar to what was there long before the software was added.  Take out the screenshot images (which could relate to any computer program doing anything, and so aren't really contributing anything) and you wouldn't see any marketing at all.  Likewise, you can't really say it was 'Taken over' by Ezmindegy, when they are the one who created it to begin with, looking largely the same (except for the short 'Available Software' section).  Anyhow, it looks to me like the promotional aspects are easily enough fixed.  I have other concerns though.  The lack of in-line citations makes it impossible to determine whether this represents a broad review of a relatively uniform the concept or is simply an essay that is basically just one way of doing something, with some references that mention the term thrown on the end.  A statement like "This quantitative feature of parasitism makes the application of many traditional statistical methods inappropriate by violating assumptions about the underlying data distribution, requiring the use of more advanced computationally-intensive methods" demands a reference, or it may just be this editor's own opinion.  The overall formatting and focus seems to be an issue, particularly in the 'Comparing parasite burdens' section that approaches being a statistical word soup, relying on redlinked statistical jargon, and the conclusion expressed as "we conclude" suggests either that it was copied from somewhere or is written in the wrong voice.  Finally, I have to wonder if it is truly notable.  Is quantitation of parasites really a notable thing unto itself, or are parasites just another notable thing that can be counted.  I guess my take-home is that it clearly has a lot of problems, but I am ambivalent about the need for the nuclear option. Agricolae (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:G12. Agricolae (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sections two and three aredirectly copied from this for the most part. I'm not sure how that works with WP:COPYVIO since I'm not seeing a copyright outright though. I'd have a tendency to suggest WP:TNT with that in mind. I have to agree with Agricolae otherwise though in that I'm not really entirely sure what to do with it. It's a common cross categorization (WP:NOTDIR comes to mind), but it doesn't really seem distinct either from quantitative research, just that it's for parasites. Things truly specific to parasites would seem like too technical of formulae used for models, sampling methods, etc. for an encyclopedia. Someone might be able to write up population dynamics of parasites article someday that would have significant overlap and would be notable, but this is a rare case where I'd say TNT the thing and let someone take up the population dynamics stuff in a new article. Either way, we don't seem to be losing anything by delete right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This link is to version 3.0, which dates to 2010, while it has been on our page since 2008. However, I managed to turn up version 1.0, from 2001 (starting page 12) and there is clearly significant textual similarity - I suspect our version is a WP:COPYVIO of version 2.0, which I could probably turn up but the quarry isn't worth the chase. Clearly this is simply taking the documentation for a software package and presenting it as if it was independent information, which removes my ambivalence. Agricolae (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or radically stubbify. Good points are made above. I personally feel that the application/software issue is a bit of a deal-breaker here. This reads like the help file for one analysis program. Take all the "this function can be used for that purpose" stuff away, and omit the general statements that apply to all of population estimation, and we are left with about one sentence on how parasites are countable and come in clustered distributions - a slightly special case of density estimation in an open population. This might be worth an article as noted above, but this isn't it. There needs to be a solid summary of the underlying subject before details about choice of indices of skewness are warranted. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:21, 14 September 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.