Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law (stochastic processes)

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 redirect‎ to Stochastic process#Law. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Law (stochastic processes)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The Wikipedia article for Stochastic process has a subsection (3.14.1) for this topic with several citations included, and this article has no additional information from what is stated in that section, and it lacks the citations too. AradhanaChatterjee (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. AradhanaChatterjee (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stochastic process#Law. This page has mostly been abandoned since its creation in 2006; there's no indication that the topic needs an article unto itself. XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, I agree with XOR'easter's comment Gumshoe2 (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too was leaning towards redirecting the page to the Stochastic process#Law section, which is why I chose to make AfD nomination instead of going the PROD way, but now I'm not sure it's required. Reasons:

I only saw this page because I re-enabled the newcomer dashboard which suggests articles that need editing, and the page had a banner about the lack of sources added in November 2009. So in almost 15 years the page didn't get any attention, no sources added or deletion nominations or talk page discussions.
I checked the page statistics using Xtools and Pageviews and the page has only had 31 revisions in total since it was created (including this one), and gets roughly 300 views a month on average.
On the other hand, the main page for stochastic processes has 1,173 revisions as of now and gets around 20000 views a month, and continues to be revised and updated regularly. I think it's quite possible that the few people who visited this page ended up here after reading the stochastic processes page and seeking more info. I have been a frequent visitor of the math articles here but I haven't been an editor for very long so what do you think XOR'easter, Gumshoe2, could the page be deleted without the redirect too? AradhanaChatterjee (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect But I also note that the two have quite different formulas. I suppose we can assume that the Stochastic process has had more consideration and is therefore the preferred content. Me, I don't speak that language. Lamona (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! The notations used are different, but the math is essentially the same. The form used in stochastic process is expanded and simplified (and more Wikipedia friendly), this page uses less commonly used vector notation for this concept.AradhanaChatterjee (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2024 (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.