Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent (2 nomination)

Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent
Articles for deletion/Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent (2 nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research not suitable for an encyclopedia. A mathematical treatise with only a couple of references to basic facts the rest are heavily mathematized proofs and reasonings. Some people in the previous discussion argue that counterexamples are OK. Referenced counter-examples are OK. References demonstrate both correctness and notability of the content. The reader does not have to trust a wikipedian that the nontrivial math is correct. - Altenmann >talk 01:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not unsourced (though one body section is), and its contents are obviously not original research (except perhaps for that one section). --JBL (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I didnt say it is unsourced. I said only a couple of references. And its content is obviously a wall of heavy original mathematical research. "Cranking through the math one finds that..." - sure thing, professor. Hold my beer. - Altenmann >talk 20:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Wow. --JBL (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Checking the references already in the article shows that it is not a wall of heavy original mathematical research. The only part that wasn't already backed up by sources explicitly discussing the specific examples given was the "Examples with support almost everywhere in $\mathbb {R} ^{2}$ " subsection. The "Cranking through the math" part was a tone problem, not a content problem, and that was easily fixed.
  Right now, the page is in deletion is not cleanup territory, I think. It might need further trimming and revising for proper encyclopedic tone, but the basic complaint of the nomination is unfounded. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid deletion rationale is offered. The article is adequately sourced, and obviously not OR. AFD is not for cleanup of minor tone problems. --JBL (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SYNTH - does it ring the bell? - Altenmann >talk 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If I were you I would be more worried about WP:CIR. --JBL (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Synthesis means drawing new conclusions from things that sources have said. This article takes a conclusion that sources have already said and illustrates it with examples that sources have already used. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I see XOR'easter tries to salvage the article by throwing in references to some math. Well, it will probably not help. No matter how many footnotes you add, the article will still be original research, only from unreferenced OR it will turn into WP:SYNTH-type OR. (Of course, there is no doubt one can find a ref to each and every "2+2=4".) For this article, you have to provide references to sources that discuss these or similar examples. We have quite a few discussions in WP to what extent math in articles is OR (especially in the issues related to statistics; somehow many people think that population counting is a trivial math). And all discussions inevitably boil down to allowing only 2+2=4 or such. And funny thing, heated battles were around basic logic: "A or B" vs. "A and B" -- who would have believe it? "He didnt drink or smoke" - true or false? - Altenmann >talk 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: Heck, in this way I can print my 2-pages-long proof of the Fermat's Last Theorem, with every line footnoted, but still wrong. - Altenmann >talk 21:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. One horse is of one coat color <ref| Base of mathematical induction /ref>
2. Suppose k horses of one color <ref| Induction hypothesis /ref>
3. Let us prove that then k+1 horses are of one color <ref| Induction step /ref>
4. ... and so on. With each sentence footnoted, and you proved that all horses are the same color.- Altenmann >talk 21:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, the rationale advanced in the deletion nomination was factually inaccurate to begin with. The sources already in the article at the time were enough to demonstrate that the examples weren't made up out of whole cloth and that the topic is a topic math people care about. Further searching only bolsters this conclusion. One could still have legitimate concerns: is the article title clear and informative? Would this work better as a section in another article? Is the tone still too textbook-like rather than encyclopedic? Such concerns, though worth discussing, are not a matter for AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Independence (probability theory), I would suggest. The article very much positions itself as WP:SYNTH; starting off with This article demonstrates that [...] is something of a heavy giveaway. The premise here is "I will make an argument", not "I will document a topic". This can be carried within an existing article because we have more leeway there to shape the structure of how information is presented, but it is quite unsuitable for a separate article. Make it a subsection under (or after) Independence (probability theory)#Examples, and it should be okay. Sentences like "it is sometimes mistakenly thought that" still require sourcing/attribution. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of this article would be totally undue at Independence (probability theory), making it an inappropriate merge target. --JBL (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might make more sense to turn this article into a section in a new article called something like Misconceptions about the normal distribution. The three different Counterexamples books, the Melnick and Tenenbein paper, etc., provide other topics that would fit under that heading. XOR'easter (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would support that. It would certainly be a better title than the current one IMO. I guess that would count as a keep and edit from me thne. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poor phrasing does not WP:SYNTH make. It's not WP:SYNTH when the references (a) point out that students actually have this misconception and (b) provide examples illustrating why it is wrong. There is no conclusion here being advanced beyond what the literature already says. XOR'easter (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]