From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. postdlf ( talk) 14:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Catalog of articles in probability theory

Catalog of articles in probability theory (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the last comment on the talk page, the article is no longer being maintained and therefore lost its purpose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply

From the last AfD, this seems to be a navigational-only article, but it does not mean it is only for editors. OK, having the codes for Ctrl-F and all that is weird for a namespace article, but (1) WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP (2) it is a net benefit for readers (at worse they do not care), so why remove it? Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:FORK. If anyone wants to merge these lists, go ahead. Bearian ( talk) 19:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 01:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC) reply

A nonstandard option: merge into the category system! Indeed, according to the previous-to-last comment on the talk page, "we have categories for this purpose". Really? What about turning a number of "codes" used on this page into new categories? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 19:58, 17 December 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.