Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stochastic measurement procedure

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stochastic measurement procedure

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

WP:OR based almost exclusively on the editor's own published work.Which is, it must be said, not in the most prestigious of journals. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with Stochastic prediction procedure as OR/self-promotion of non-notable work. Both articles are the author's very particular take, and as such are drastically more narrowly focused than their titles would suggest. XOR'easter (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junk and original research like the rest of this walled garden. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis article has a tag for not only not meeting WP:N, but it also has a tag for mostly relying on primary sources. Further more the article is written poorly so much so that after only a couple of sentences I was lost.Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:OR and promotion of primary source. I am in support of deleting all these OR articles by this user because they are all similar and sourced from one source –Ammarpad (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same as the other ones, mix of failing WP:NOR, and not having enough independent reliable sources to pass WP:NPOV. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:17, 26 November 2017 (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.