Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rigorous error analysis


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 23:35Z 

Rigorous error analysis


The article is wrong in that the error analysis presented is not rigorous. It says that the error in f(x) is the derivative f' times the error in x raised to the second power. This is a decent error estimate except that you shouldn't raise the error in x to the second power. However, it is not rigorous; a rigorous error analysis would yield a bound on the error, not an estimate.

I know that an article being wrong is not a reason for deletion according to WP:DP. However, there is nothing left after removing the wrong parts. I don't know what an article "rigorous error analysis" could be about and I don't think that I should write the article just to get some wrong information removed from Wikipedia. Surely, the phrase is used, but in my experience it means just "a error analysis that is rigorous".

Historical note: Article was proposed for deletion by User:Jyotirmoyb but the PROD tag was removed by an IP editor. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice to recreation. I can't say I found the text particularly clear. I have no competence to detect or correct any errors in it. I will say that this article seems almost completely free from context, and its wording suggests it may also be a how-to article. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to Error analysis and get a member of Wikiproject Mathematics to rewrite the article so that it is correct. Delete. Error analysis has been created. --N Shar 05:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is already an article at Error analysis so one can't simply move it; it would need to be a merge. But the rigorous error analysis article is completely unsourced, and quite possibly wrong, so the material isn't even suitable for a merge.  Note the the current error analysis article that is being cited as a target for the move does provide references. -- Whpq 20:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. That article was created during the discussion. I've changed my vote accordingly. --N Shar 20:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Move, second above suggestion. --Kelsch 13:26 7 February 2007
 * Delete, there is no evidence that there is anything specific called 'Rigorous error analysis' and this article has no content that might be usable for an article on a more appropriate topic. -Jyotirmoyb 07:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, complete wrong --Mathemaduenn 11:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - appears to be orginal research -- Whpq 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * weak delete I wouldnt like to delete articles because they are not clearly presented, but we do delete articles because they do not provide a meaningful amount of information, as is the case with this one. DGG 05:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research, and there is no evidence (from googling at least) that there is a topic named 'Rigorous error analysis'. CloudNine 16:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable topic. Errors and residuals in statistics and numerical analysis address this topic adequately. DavidCBryant 21:38, 11 February 2007 (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.