Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wald's maximin model

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 Keep A discussion on the best name for the article might be in order, but that can be done on the articles talk page via WP:RM. Salix (talk): 08:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wald's maximin model

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

Delete. The term "Wald's maximin model" is a neologism by Sniedovich. Hippopotamus Logic (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY? Then why, exactly, can article cite papers by Wald himself, Resnik, and French as sources describing this model?
Keep and thoroughly investigate Hippopotamus Logic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose sole contributions are bogus AFDs. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do a simple google search to verify that the term "Wald's Maximin model" has been indeed in common use for many years. It is different from the Maximin model used in game theory. Sniedo (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Actually, it would be better to google search for "Wald's Maximin criterion". This is one of the most important models/criteria in decision theory. It is used in most text books on decision theory. Sniedo (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the most appropriate page title is actually "Wald's Maximin criterion", the article can be moved. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Peter, the most appropriate title is "Wald's Maximin model". I recommend that the article should retain its title. Sniedo (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable and covered by reliable sources. It appears to me that indeed "Wald's maximin criterion" is the most common name for this topic, and we do have a policy of using the most common name as the article title, but that is a separate discussion, and a sub-optimal name is not a ground for deletion. --Lambiam 22:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the most common name is Wald's Maximin criterion, the most suitable name is Wald's Maximin model. Sniedo (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, that goes against policy. Over 67% of the references I found in a Google search use "criterion", and only 4% use "model". Suitability is subjective. Next thing some editor will maintain that, although "Australia" is more common, "Down Under" is more suitable as the name for the topic. --Lambiam 02:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suitability is indeed subjective and there is nothing wrong with that. Technical terms should properly reflect the context in which they are used. The "criterion" option is suitable in the context of discussions on "decision criteria". Here, the article is dedicated to a mathematical model named after Wald, and is not studied for the purpose of a comparison with other models. It is a topic of its own. There are indeed cases where "Australia" is more suitable then "Down Under" and vice versa. Regarding the Maximin, a (subjective) human input, say one based on 40 years of teaching the subject, can be very helpful here. Sniedo (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google books finds a variety of names: Wald's maximin model, criterion, method, technique, etc. I'd vote for 'Wald's maximin' all by itself as a move target since it seems to be used that way too. Being a neologism alone is not sufficient for deletion (though being a neologism invented by the article's creator is). There is clearly some conflict of interest issues here by Sniedovich being one of the primary editors of the article and listed as a reference.--RDBury (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need your advice, on "conflict of interest", RDBury. What should I do in cases where the results under consideration appear only in my (Sniedovich) peer-reviewed articles? Sniedo (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policies are given at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing oneself and Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself. It's not prohibited but there should probably some impartial review to make sure the article follows the guidelines. The main thing is we don't want WP to be used a vehicle for people to promote their own work or fill up with overly specialized material.--RDBury (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, RDBury. No worries. Sniedo (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Wald's Maximin criterion, which seems to be the more commonly-used term.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Radagast3 (talk • contribs)

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.