Talk:N = 1 fallacy

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 October 2010. The result of the discussion was redirect.

old talk collapsed, any new talk should be posted at Talk:Pseudoreplication

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

copyright infringement[edit]

In response to the notification "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement of http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2003.08.003 Box 1 The N equals 1 fallacy" I would like to respond that we are the authors of the paper in question which we published in "trends in parasitology" in 2003. To avoid potential copyright issues the sentences in question have been rephrased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lseidlein (talk • contribs)

wording[edit]

I'm sorry to say that this article is very hard to read. With a (limited) background in statistics, I couldn't really get an idea what the fallacy is about. Then language is very technical and the example is neither reproducible nor illuminative without a deep understanding of the chi-square test. Maybe some additional exemplary calculations would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.1.9.89 (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for jargon, and notability. If the concept was defined in 2003, then a proof of notability would include cites from reliable sources after that point. There is none in the article at the moment, and after a quick google search, I find little evidence for notability. Additionally, you are absolutely right, the article is very hard to read, for the lay-person and even those with a decent statistics background.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems unclearly written for reasons other than jargon. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you do agree that it's unclearly written. I put the confusing tag but it's still of no help if no one can or cares to rewrite the article. I would suggest to put it for AfD at this point, as the notability is not established and there is no evidence that the concept has been used outside the 2003 article where it was defined, and it certainly hasn't been widely used at all.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

kindly requesting not to remove the page[edit]

this page has been removed. i was trying to understand the reasons for the removal. the article describes a problem in epidemiology which is not identical or even similar to what is described under pseudoreplication. the n=1 fallacy refers to the misuse of the unit of analysis. Please consider to leave this page posted. Even if you don't find it helpful others may? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lseidlein (talk • contribs) 10:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]