Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quotients of determinants

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotients of determinants

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

Lack of notability and COI. The only source is a single paper, which it's not clear if it's even been published, just "registered", so not a RS. The main page creator has the same name as the paper author, with further biographical details inserted into the article. Tags removed without reason. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete as unpublished original research. While the results are better than most original research on wikipedia as they are essentially correct, they are just a trivial combination of the Lagrange interpolation formula and the Vandermonde determinant. r.e.b. (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...which is our main reason for forbidding original research. Maybe? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. R.e.b. gave a good summary of the reasons. Per the nominator, appears to be a vanity page. Arcfrk (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment or confession: As soon as I hear the term "quotients of determinants", I wonder if it bears upon likelihood ratio tests involving the Wishart distribution, since those involve quotients of determinants of Wishart matrices. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Michael Hardy to one of those articles. Bearian'sBooties 14:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- comment that would inserting OR into one of those articles though, unless there's reliable source for it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not suggesting merger. The article doesn't appear to be about quotients of determinants in general, but only about one particular use of them. In particular, it doesn't see directly relevant to the problem I said was what I first thought of when I saw the title. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable (and trivial) application of Cramer's rule. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I've read it enough to have a good handle on what it says. Yes, it's correct. But as Sławomir Biały says, it's the Lagrange interpolation rule plus Cramer's rule, and those are the two parts of it worth having articles about, and we do. When I hear the term "quotients of determinants", as I said above, I immediately think of likelihood ratio tests involving Wishart matrices. But those are quotients of determinants of symmetric nonnegative-definite matrices—not the same thing as these at all. So, as I also said above, that should not be taken to imply that a merger is in order. It isn't. Hence, delete. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2010 (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.