Deletion of Null model

Comment: The article reflects a total misunderstanding of the literature. As noted by the nom, null model simply means null hypothesis, even in graph theory, which makes this a  full of errors, and one that should be deleted. -- Special:Contributions/101.119.25.193|101.119.25.193
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: per  "The nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action").  Seconded.  The claim is that the page is a mess not that it should be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK)

Comment: per  "The nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action"). Redirection does not require deletion or administrator intervention. It sounds to me like you have the necessary knowledge to turn this into a useful page, and you yourself assert the notability of the topic. A disambiguation page might be appropriate, or a redirect as you suggest
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK)

Comment: Null model'' and ''null hypothesis'' are not synonymous concepts. While null hypotheses often contain explicit or implicit null models, null models are used outside of statistical hypothesis testing. For instance, in frequentist statistics, likelihood ratios are computed against null models that may or may not be part of some hypothesis. Similarly in Bayesian model comparison, models are judged by comparing the Marginal likelihood|Bayesian evidence for each model, with no explicit hypothesis to be accepted or rejected, just a measure of explanatory power. This article seems a  for a particular null model in a single network paper, but the topic of a null model is notable and different than that of null hypothesis
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)