Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detrended correspondence analysis

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. WP:SNOW -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Detrended correspondence analysis

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

Incoherent mess of buzzwords, no sourcing found. Prod declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could the nom please clarify what is meant by "no sourcing found"? There are several items in the References section. –dlthewave ☎ 21:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep GScholar's very first hits on the phrase are a series of paper discussing the merits of the technique. I must confess I find the explanation opaque, however. Mangoe (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The paper that introduced the technique has over 4,000 GS citations. That's a clear sign of notability for any academic contribution. And GS finds over a thousand publications containing the exact phrase "detrended correspondence analysis" just since the beginning of 2017 [1]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term has been in use, and appearing in the relevant literature, for forty years. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sourcing, clearly important. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. It's patently obvious that this is a notable subject in ecology. It's hard to write articles about statistical techniques that are totally accessible to a lay audience, but the fact that you don't understand an article isn't a good reason to delete it. – Joe (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Easily notable. A quick WP:BEFORE would have prevented this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The heck. When did "I don't understand this topic" become a reason to nominate for deletion? Widely used method, good if not great sourcing (in direct contrast to the OP's statement). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:29, 18 January 2018 (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.