Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiener sausage

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 per WP:SNOW. --Salix alba (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiener sausage

clearly a parody of the Wiener process. Udonknome (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nom changed !vote to "keep" here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 19:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails in notability and in search engines . --Pearll's sun (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge with some mathematic topic , but a separate page for this will sure confuse users while more than one such reference exists [1].
Keep wish to be better late than never , but the admin must decide how to handle this page/article since more than one such reference is found [2] --Pearll's sun (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Ok, I just gotta respond to this one. Do you just crank out this response even if you haven't actually used any search engines to check notability? I mean, the most popular search engine is Google, and if you put in Wiener sausage into Google, on the very first page you see several technical, mathematical papers discussing Wiener sausages (as described in the article). How on earth did you conclude from this that it "fails notability"? Furthermore if you tried Google Scholar, it would have been even clearer! --C S (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
good argument and a nice explanation . kindly see my vote =) --Pearll's sun (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an old joke, not encyclopedic in itself. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Wiener sausage is an important mathematical object which is in the title or abstract of countless, serious mathematical papers, e.g. search "Wiener sausage" in Google Scholar. I'm puzzled by how all of the deletion comments seem completely unsubstantiated. Perhaps the nominator should have done his/her homework, as obviously here, many people are willing to just follow the nom's lead without checking any further. --C S (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment i not always follow the nom's lead and always search the same in search engines before commenting nor voting . this short article might be merged with some mathematic topic and may be re-directed but as a separate page , just check the size of its content , should we keep creating separate pages for every single ?? --Pearll's sun (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Are you familiar with the concept of "stub"? Articles don't have to be born as full-length articles! Unless you have the expertise to determine that the Wiener sausage should be merged to another article, what is the basis for your decision that this stub should be killed? In my humble opinion, the fact that major papers have been written specifically on the Wiener sausage (rather than on the broader topic of Wiener process), e.g. it's asymptotics and volume, there is certainly enough for a much longer article. --C S (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - well if this is so then kindly check this [3] , aren't we confusing users ??.--Pearll's sun (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[unindent] Are you joking? How are we confusing users? The search link you gave me, on the very first page, shows a mixture of food and mathematical links. The confusion already exists in search engines. You do realize there are ways to handle when a term refers to more than one object, right? It's called disambiguation. In this case, I would say the primary topic for "Wiener sausage" is actually the mathematical object. The food is usually just called "Wiener", although it often appears on pages that also discuss sausages (try searching with "Wiener sausage" in quotes). This is why nobody has bothered creating a Wiener sausage page until now. So the proper thing to do is add a note at the top saying if you are looking for wieners, look here, etc. --C S (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- well then if that is the case then we must point out that this term refers to more than one topic and add a "mathematic" info to it and the article topic as well so that we wont be confusing any . im sure if we allow an article in a single name while it refers to more than one . kindly check this page too [4] --Pearll's sun (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm well aware of disambiguation practices, although you don't seem to be, as my comments about primary topic disambiguation went over your head. In any case, this is irrelevant. You argued to delete the page but now you are arguing to keep it under a different title while turning this one into a disambiguation page. That is a discussion that takes place on the talk page of the article, not here. The discussion here is about whether to delete this article/content. And you've already changed your mind, so really there is nothing more for me and you to discuss, except possibly the disambiguation issue on the talk page. --C S (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you do a search result for "Wiener sausage" in quotes, taking out the math results, you will only find a very few hits, generally related to Asian food. This is because in English "Wiener sausage" is not a term that is generally used. What people in Japan, for example, refer to as "Wiener sausage" would be called a "Vienna Sausage" or "Cocktail Wiener" here. "Wiener" is also an alternate name for hot dog, and probably what most Americans would think of when they heard "Wiener". So the primary topic for "Wiener sausage" (if you look at Google, for example) really is the mathematical object. So it's not as confusing you may think. In any case, I don't see the need for creating a disambiguation page here, so I'm not going to start the discussion on the talk page. But if you feel that is the case, you should start the discussion there. --C S (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - many thanks C S . you are doing a pretty job .--Pearll's sun (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The Wiener sausage is an important mathematical object, because it is one of the simplest examples of a non-Markovian functional of Brownian motion. ..." Many, many refernces to this subject in google scholar, google books and just plain google (if you separate out the food object from the mathematical one). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Note that it links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of mathematics articles (W), which indicates that it is a legitimate mathematical topic. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been notified to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a joke. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - clearly not a hoax or parody, if perhaps a funny name. Nominators and delete !voters seem to be misinformed/clueless. If anything, maybe merge instead (although I'd say give the stub a chance). --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep funny name indeed... Mct mht (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...wow how ignorance can be funny..SORRY!! I guess I learned something today! Udonknome (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --CSTAR (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "delete" voters just haven't done their homework. Let's take a look:
- Jean-François Le Gall, "Fluctuation Results for the Wiener Sausage", Annals of Probability, 1988, volume 16, number 3, pages 991–1018
- M. van den Berg, E. Bolthausen, F. den Hollander, "Moderate deviations for the volume of the Wiener sausage", Annals of Mathematics, 2001, volume 153, pages 355–406
- E. Bolthausen, "On the Volume of the Wiener Sausage", Annals of Probability, 1990, volume 18, number 4, pages 1576–1582
- Uwe Schmock , "Convergence of the normalized one-dimensional wiener sausage path measures to a mixture of brownian taboo processes", Stochastics An International Journal of Probability and Stochastic Processes, Volume 29, Issue 2 February 1990 , pages 171–183
- T. Eisele and R. Lang, "Asymptotics for the wiener sausage with drift", Probability Theory and Related Fields, Volume 74, Number 1 / March, 1987, pages 125–140
- Yuji Hamana, Harry Kesten, " A large-deviation result for the range of random walk and for the Wiener sausage", Probability Theory and Related Fields, Volume 120, Number 2 / June, 2001, Pages 183–208
- A. S. Sznitman, "Some bounds and limiting results for the measure of Wiener sausage of small radius associated with elliptic diffusions", Stochastic processes and their applications, 1987, volume 25, number 1, pages 1–25
- Isaac Chavel, Edgar A. Feldman, "The Lenz shift and wiener sausage in riemannian manifolds", Compositio Mathematica, volume 60, number 1, (1986), pages 65–84
- M. D. Donsker and S. R. S. Varadhan, "Asymptotics for the Wiener sausage", Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, volume 28 (1975), pages 525–565

...and a large number of others found by Google Scholar. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- comment yup i agree , wish to be more careful next time . --Pearll's sun (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Originally a silly joke, this has become a notable mathematical term. Google scholar has 294 hits for the combination of "Wiener sausage" and "brownian". --Hans Adler (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revise article to show the sources mentioned. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I copy-and-pasted Michael's refs in. To unstub it, someone would need to actually read and digest all that sausage, but I think in its current stubby state they are more than adequate to show that this concept is notable mathematically. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to call for snow now - despite hating this horrible cold weather, I think this one is all snowed up. Two delete votes remain (and not the nom), and they are obviously mistaken about the nature of the subject of this article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2008 (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.