169:
correct "Personal" to "Pearson", of course. VfD should never be used as a substitute for cleanup. Although it's very tempting because you get these dramatic death-bed cleanups, it's too risky a process and we've lost a lot of reasonable stubs because nobody on VfD that week happened to know the subject well enough to do cleanup or even assess the stub's value. --
72:(Perhaps an explanation since some feel this nomination was inappropriate. I may be thick in genuinely mistaking the article for possible nonsense. This in part reflects my total ignorance of the subject, but then an encyclopaedia article should at least make sense to a reasonably educated person - and as it stood this did not - now it (almost) does.)
168:
Well the original was "The
Personal Distribution is a Probability Distribution. It can be varied in many ways. There are a number of types." It's not much, but it's unquestionably a valid stub. This article should not have been nominated. It might have been better to pop a math-stub tag on it--and
82:
Could I ask that people doing cleanup--whose work I greatly appreciate--please avoid using the VfD process on subjects of which they do not know enough to evaluate an article? Perhaps in this case the appropriate things to do would be add "math-stub" so the Math people will find it during their
180:
Your comment delves into the controversial aspects of immediatism vs. eventualism. The question of whether substubs should be kept and expanded, or just deleted until someone cares to make an article with more content is open to debate. My view on it was that "it can be varied in many ways" and
181:"there are many types" didn't really say much, and that the article in that form was not useful. All distribution functions I have seen can be varied in some way or another. The rewrite is a bit better (that's why I voted to keep it), although I still miss a formula defining it.
482:. As Doc Glasgow has said, it has been entirely changed from the original. However, even as "borderline jibberish", does it merit a VfD, rather than a vote for a tidy up? That said, I see the VfD has made a significant difference to this article! --
153:
At present the article says nothing about what the
Pearson distribution looks like, but it is better than the last version which was a substub stating little else than the fact that it was a distribution. Alright the rewrite is valid albeit a stub, so
508:
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.
227:
Part of the ethos of
Knowledge is that many people can add to the definition. Great oaks from tiny acorns grow, according to my understanding of biology, therefore I beleive it would be a mistake to delete this entry so earlt in life.
188:
My comment delves into nothing else but
Knowledge policy. We do not delete reasonable stubs (and what we see in the history is a reasonable stub) on subjects with encyclopedic potential. A family of statistical distributions has
138:
The
Pearson distribution is something real and probably as notable as Gauss distribution or Poisson distribution. There are google hits a plenty on this distribution function. However the article has no real content and can be
455:. The fact that it appears there is enough reason for me to keep the article, even though I am not a statistician and I do not recall coming across this distribution before.
235:. The last post misses the point - we don't put non-notable things on Knowledge as a means to help them grow into notability. That has to be accomplished first. --
466:. Anyway, I added the characteristic function, mean, variance, skewness, and kurtosis of the type III distribution to the article. Now, it looks much better.
385:. Unfortunately, I am no math expert. So I am not sure if the article should include all of the types in the family of the Pearson Distributions
84:
243:
38:
Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
17:
240:
267:. I just cannot fathom why anyone would list an article on this distribution for deletion. Utterly beyond belief. --
48:
23:
223:
I don't think this should be deleted - it is a realy thing of interest and has already been added to:martinpeter
252:
350:
272:
198:
174:
92:
463:
452:
426:
336:
236:
448:
54:
45:
497:
407:
127:
109:
436:
388:
471:
456:
397:
390:
296:
268:
194:
170:
88:
333:
104:-- unless someone can make some sense of it and expand the article into something useful. -
75:
67:
34:
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below.
373:
360:
209:
182:
162:
144:
493:
483:
404:
324:
282:
123:
105:
467:
447:. I added the probability density function of the Pearson type III distribution to
393:
292:
239:
14:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) D'oh! Got signed out before I signed the post. It's me. --
386:
370:
256:
314:
410:
193:
encyclopedic potential. This article should never have been listed. --
143:
d as it stands now. If anyone wants to rewrite, I will reconsider.
122:-- changed my vote based on the cleanup since my original vote. --
70:
09:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Article entirely changed since nomination
208:
without the "weak" now that we have a formula for one of them.
383:
392:. But in any case, its better than it was before.
161:then, but this is in desperate need of expansion.
24:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Pearson distribution
83:normal cleanup rounds, and perhaps a message on
87:asking someone knowledgeable to look at it. --
8:
65:unless shown to be notable and cleaned up--
349:- appears to be valid stub at the moment.
382:. Well, I cleaned up the article a bit.
85:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Mathematics
7:
417:in case that wasn't obvious already)
369:- valid stub on notable topic - see
413:10:58, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) (oh, and
313:(and thus discourage recreation).
31:
323:notable statistical distrbution.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
61:borderline nonsense (I think)
40:The result of the debate was
511:Please do not edit this page
36:This page is no longer live.
530:
502:) 17:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
305:and cleanup, failing that
459:12:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
400:08:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
376:08:31, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
339:01:59, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
201:10:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
177:08:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
165:06:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
78:11:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
486:09:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
474:13:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
451:, which can be found in
441:11:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
429:10:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
363:03:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
353:03:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
327:02:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
317:01:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
299:01:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
285:00:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
275:00:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
261:23:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
253:Probability distribution
245:14:55, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
212:06:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
185:08:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
147:11:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
130:04:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
112:10:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
95:11:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
49:18:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
359:, cleanup and expand.
464:Abramowitz and Stegun
453:Abramowitz and Stegun
449:Pearson distribution
403:It probably should.
55:Pearson distribution
462:Oh, I forgot about
351:Capitalistroadster
281:, valid stub. -
22:(Redirected from
521:
500:
427:Charles Matthews
289:Keep and Cleanup
259:
27:
529:
528:
524:
523:
522:
520:
519:
518:
517:
498:
257:
58:
46:Rich Farmbrough
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
527:
525:
516:
515:
504:
503:
487:
477:
476:
475:
442:
430:
420:
419:
418:
377:
364:
354:
340:
328:
318:
300:
286:
276:
262:
246:
225:
224:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
186:
150:
149:
134:
133:
132:
131:
97:
96:
57:
52:
39:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
526:
514:
512:
506:
505:
501:
495:
491:
488:
485:
481:
478:
473:
469:
465:
461:
460:
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:
440:
439:
434:
431:
428:
424:
421:
416:
412:
409:
406:
402:
401:
399:
395:
391:
389:
387:
384:
381:
378:
375:
371:
368:
365:
362:
358:
355:
352:
348:
344:
341:
338:
335:
332:
329:
326:
322:
319:
316:
312:
309:, but do not
308:
304:
301:
298:
294:
290:
287:
284:
280:
277:
274:
270:
266:
263:
260:
254:
250:
247:
244:
242:
238:
237:131.94.17.126
234:
231:
230:
229:
222:
221:
211:
207:
203:
202:
200:
196:
192:
187:
184:
179:
178:
176:
172:
167:
166:
164:
160:
158:
152:
151:
148:
146:
142:
136:
135:
129:
125:
121:
118:
117:
116:
115:
114:
113:
111:
107:
103:
94:
90:
86:
81:
80:
79:
77:
73:
69:
66:
64:
56:
53:
51:
50:
47:
43:
37:
25:
19:
510:
507:
489:
479:
457:Jitse Niesen
444:
437:
432:
422:
414:
379:
366:
356:
346:
342:
334:Paul August
330:
320:
310:
306:
302:
288:
278:
269:Tony Sidaway
264:
248:
232:
226:
205:
195:Tony Sidaway
190:
171:Tony Sidaway
156:
155:
140:
137:
119:
101:
99:
98:
89:Tony Sidaway
71:
62:
60:
59:
41:
35:
33:
367:Strong keep
265:Strong keep
204:I will say
76:Doc Glasgow
68:Doc Glasgow
374:Gandalf61
361:Megan1967
210:Sjakkalle
183:Sjakkalle
163:Sjakkalle
145:Sjakkalle
499:Συμπλεκω
494:Sympleko
484:stochata
325:Klonimus
311:redirect
283:Mustafaa
249:Redirect
191:de facto
124:Longhair
106:Longhair
468:Zzyzx11
394:Zzyzx11
380:Comment
293:Zzyzx11
408:adiant
347:expand
307:delete
258:Teknic
233:Delete
141:delete
102:Delete
63:delete
438:N-Man
315:Kappa
16:<
490:Keep
480:Keep
472:Talk
445:Keep
433:Keep
423:Keep
415:keep
398:Talk
357:Keep
345:and
343:Keep
331:Keep
321:Keep
303:Keep
297:Talk
279:Keep
273:Talk
206:Keep
199:Talk
175:Talk
159:keep
157:weak
128:Talk
120:Keep
110:Talk
93:Talk
44:. –
42:keep
251:to
241:8^D
492:.
470:|
435:.
425:.
411:_*
396:|
372:.
295:|
291:.
126:|
108:|
74:--
513:.
496:(
405:R
337:☎
271:|
255:—
197:|
173:|
100:*
91:|
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.