Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sampling variogram


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sampling variogram

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A non-self-contained article that requires multiple accesses to external pages to understand. Edit tags in place for several years without improvement. Melcombe (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge This is the same topic as variogram but that article is poor too. See this primer for a better explanation of the topic. Warden (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is a POV fork of variogram, written by User:JanWMerks in 2006 as part of a crusade against geostatistics. I tried to mark the page with a POV marker, but it was removed (improperly, I believe) —hike395 (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that searching for "sampling variogram" in Google yields either geostatscam.com (Dr. Merks personal website), wikipedia mirrors, or coincidental overlap of the two words. —hike395 (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * JW Merks seems to be an expert, having published papers such as Sampling in Mineral Processing. The word variogram is a neologism, not appearing in the OED, and so the usage sampling variogram seems a reasonable way of clarifying what is meant.  Debating the technical details of this is a matter for article talk pages, not AFD. Warden (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Does non-appearance in OED mean it's a neologism when it's been in standard use in its field for a half-century or more? Maybe OED doesn't necessarily try to get into the technical terminology of every field, when it's quite obscure from the POV of people outside the field. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Expertise isn't the issue here, POV is. If you look at geostatscam.com, you'll see the POV that geostatistics caused the Bre-X scandal. The same POV is being pushed at Sampling variogram, but not at Variogram. —hike395 (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Incoherent and intrinsically non-neutral article due the FRINGE aspect. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2011 (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.