Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Previous AfD was closed as Keep, which was overturned in Deletion Review.

I find the idea of keeping this article nothing short of scandalous. Fails WP:GNG, clear case of WP:PROMOTION and WP:COI. It was written by Łukaszyk himself, and is about his own PhD thesis. It was already deleted for these reasons back in 2009, after which Łukaszyk restored the article.

In the previous AfD Łukaszyk bombarded the page with irrelevant references, which were merely citing his paper. To satisfy WP:GNG a citation is not enough, one needs significant coverage, that addresses the topic directly and in detail. I managed to find a single arXiv pre-print that gives it significant coverage. As it is not published, it doesn't count as a reliable source for the purposes of WP:GNG. Still, I find it interesting to remark that this pre-print dismisses the "Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric", which is not a metric, as a mistaken version of the well-known expected absolute difference, which is in fact a metric.

I think it's also important to mention that in the previous AfD all legitimate participants !voted Delete. All Keep !votes came from WP:SPAs or users that Łukaszyk WP:CANVASSED from the Polish Wikipedia. Łukaszyk has since then been blocked for sockpuppetry. Tercer (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Tercer (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Following the preprint linked above and the definitions in the articles, this appears to be a nonstandard name for a standard concept, mean absolute difference. I don't think we have adequate sourcing even for a redirect to that topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Whoo boy. The title is, as far as I could tell, citogenesis: the scattered mentions in the literature all came after the author named the Wikipedia page after himself (and his PhD advisor). Letting that stand wouldn't just violate guidelines or policies, but the ethos of building a trustworthy encyclopedia. None of the lengthy discussion of properties, examples, or "Physical interpretation" is justified by secondary sources. The Moyer–Landauer business is synthesis. Combine the bad title with the unsupported content, and there's nothing to save. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not true, there are citations from before the Wikipedia article was created, for example this. Olaf (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That reference is from 2010. As explained above, the article existed in 2009. As it happens, Google Scholar (which is generally very permissive in what it reports, since they try to scrape everything) finds no citations to Łukaszyk's "A new concept of probability metric and its applications in approximation of scattered data sets" from 2004, the year it was published, through 2008. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete For the potpourri of exciting reasons put forth by Tercer, David Eddings Eppstein, and XOR'easter. PianoDan (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * David Eddings?? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I apologize for that. PianoDan (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Postpone I feel the situation as deeply unfair. The article in question has been kept in the previous discussion. Then the author was blocked for 21 days for formal reasons, and the discussion was restarted with no new argument for the deletion, yet without any chance for the author to defend it. Without going into whether this ban was justified, everybody should have a chance to defend, and the discussion in the current form would be strongly biased. I believe the discussion should be postponed until the ban of the author is lifted, or there should be some other way offered to Guswan of taking part in the discussion. By proxy? By declared new account used for this discussion only? Olaf (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I confess myself unable to grasp what you mean by "formal reasons". Łukaszyk was blocked for violating the rules that the Wikipedia community has found, by experience, to be necessary for the site to function. See Sockpuppetry, Conflict of interest, and also Canvassing. All of your suggested options would amount to circumventing a block and violating Wikipedia's procedures once again. Per the policy on blocking, editors are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or "proxying") unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. New accounts that engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and that appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If the goal of this discussion is to evaluate the case without any bias, you must allow the main advocate of each side to speak up, or the results are easy to predict but not necessarily accurate. In the real world even the convicted person has right to defend in other cases. If it's against the rules to allow Guswan to defend his article, the discussion should be postponed until the ban is lifted. Olaf (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no "main advocate of each side". Anyone can make a case for or against the article on its merits. Łukaszyk is not on trial. We are simply trying to decide whether or not something he wrote belongs in an encyclopedia. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So your decision will be biased and possibly inaccurate if it's made while the main source of the arguments for keeping the article is silenced. Olaf (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There's not a "main source of arguments." The article should stand or fall on its own merits, based on the objective criteria of notability.  It shouldn't require any one person to make the case for it, and if only one person is capable of effectively making that case, that's a pretty good sign that the article isn't really notable. PianoDan (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Largely because of WP:PROMO and WP:COI. I'm not unbiased; I've had several unsatisfactory interactions with the originator, the general theme of which has been a disregard of Wikipedia rules and incivility. My general impression is that this is part of a pattern of using Wikipedia as a media to publish stuff they originate, regardless of interest to the world (or Wikipedia) at large. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 13:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any self-promotion/COI aside, there isn't sufficient evidence to suggest WP:GNG is met. -- Kinu t/c 08:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.