Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalescence (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. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coalescence (statistics)

[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)

Not sure if this is a settled science. As-is, the article is based on a self-published 2025 work by Van Droogenbroeck that has some discussion also of Hill & Miller of 2011 (the latter is about the opposite of the coalescence, conflation). As-is, fails WP:SIGCOV as it has no independent sources. I have tried to find independent sources myself - and failed. Викидим (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the sake of all that is good, please use references in a way that they can be found and interrogated. As it stands the main reference (Hill and Miller) is something that the first paragraph says is a contrast to the thing the page is about. So that's not anything to do with the topic. The only other reference appears to not be peer-reviewed, but it is hard to tell as the referencing is poor. I can't find it based on the title, so I'm not entirely sure. So delete, based on this not being framed as a page topic that can be assessed. JMWt (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Physics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, similar to above. The single source [2] was self published in Jan 2025, and does not appear to have been published in a peer reviewed journal as yet. Even if it had it would fail WP:TOOSOON unless there was major attention from the peer community. A rather clear-cut fail on multiple levels.Ldm1954 (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like an unintentional WP:CFORK of Belief aggregation: 'conflation' = multiplicative aggregation, 'coalescence' = harmonic opinion pooling (seems niche). While WP policy also permits merging, nothing jumps out at me as worth salvaging (particularly given the poor sourcing situation). Preimage (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am always someone to try to look for a way to keep an article, but this one fails several Wikipedia guidelines. WP:GNG is failed due to the page seemingly centering on an observation of a single source (and, for my part, I could not find additional sources, and it sounds like the same goes for others here), WP:TOOSOON is failed due to its lack of acceptance by the academic community, or at least that is not shown, and it seems to me like WP:RS is violated with the single source that is cited. Cornerstone1949 (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.