Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line fitting

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 as a week so far has suggested this with apparently no outstanding delete suggestions, the article also contains several entries including some containing these words (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Line fitting

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

Merge to Linear regression Quest for Truth (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: linear regression is but one of the four different line fitting methods listed in this stub article, as discussed in the further-reading book. fgnievinski (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikipedia:Merger. This is articles for deletion. Please state how an administrator pressing the delete button to remove content and all attribution and history is involved in what you want. Uncle G (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is obviously a notable topic, so I don't think any reasonable case could be made for deletion. This article works as a broad concept set index article, as there are types of line fitting not conforming to a typical linear regression model; for instance, reduced major axis methods, briefly mentioned in Total_least squares#Scale invariant methods don't fit the usual linear regression assumptions. Spectral line fitting in astronomy has little to do with linear regression. So I think as a well-formed SIA with a topic broader than that of the linear regression article, this article is fine to keep. --Mark viking (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a DAB page, basically per Mark Viking. "Line fitting" is a reasonable search term, and it is not quite synonymous with "linear regression". I could see a case for redirecting to curve fitting, but the current state of the article proves it is possible to do more. This being said, I think the "further reading" section is inappropriate for an index article, especially if it is promotion for a single book.

On a more formal note, the nominator could have boldly performed the merger himself, or used the merge proposition process; AfD is not the appropriate venue. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good disambiguation page at a reasonable search term. Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose merge. There is nothing wrong with this disambiguation page and linear regression is only a subset of line fitting. DeVerm (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2016 (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.