Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revising opinions in statistics

: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. I can userfy this if anyone wants to merge it somewhere (I know too little about statistics for this). Sandstein 05:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Revising opinions in statistics]]=

:{{la|Revising opinions in statistics}} ([{{fullurl:Revising opinions in statistics|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revising opinions in statistics}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This article is nothing more than a how-to manual for the application of Bayes' theorem. It is also unsourced, but even if sourced, such content is still inappropriate per above. After deletion, a redirect of the title to Bayes' theorem or Bayesian statistics, etc., might be prudent. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 03:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I certainly don't like the title of the article. Probably anything in it worth keeping should be merged into one or more other articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC).
I think that criticism misses the mark entirely. How to do it isn't the point; the point is the general role of what is done. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For me, the problem is with the term 'opinion', which is not defined in the article, and which does not have a standard definition in this field as far as I know. I think such a high-level, step-by-step overview is fine, and is not a 'how-to' in a problematic way. It belongs somewhere (heavily edited) in a discussion of how subjective Bayesians use data to update their prior beliefs. Skbkekas (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete with extreme prejudice. This isn't even a stub, it's nothing more than a half-baked idea. The idea itself should be expressed as a brief paragraph within one of the Bayesian articles. —Aetheling (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC).

Merge to Bayesian inference as a less technical overview or expanded lead section. The lead of Bayesian inference is a bit short at present for quite a long article. Qwfp (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Historical footnote: This article is essentially unchanged since it was first written by Larry Sanger way back in July 2001: nost:Revising opinions in statistics. Qwfp (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:Delete. Haha, its hilarious that its hung on so long in such a poor state. Has Sanger been informed, as the original contributor, of this AfD? Fences&Windows 23:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Done. Fences&Windows 23:38, 19 June 2009 (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.