Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolmogorov–Zurbenko filter


 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈  05:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Kolmogorov–Zurbenko filter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an unusual one. The subject appears to be real, but this article has substantive edits only form single-purpose accounts, including at least one whose name matches one of the authors, and the article's use of references by bracketed hard-coded numbers makes it clear that it is copy-pasted from somewhere, almost certainly a document of the originator's own authorship. It's been tagged for single-source since creation, which is not strictly correct, but all the sources seem to be written by one or other of the porponents of the theory and it is almost certainly WP:OR. it contains hard-coded cites to predatory journals, including three Scientific Research Publishing and one OMICS Group, which are going to be a lot of work to remove. I think the subject may be valid but the COI and copy-paste issues mean we need WP:TNT. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The first citation in the article is to a book on the subject, by Zurbenko, published by a mainstream scientific publisher.  See .  Also, Google scholar turns up several articles on this subject by people with no obvious relation to Zurbenko.  So the subject seems notable.  Furthermore, based on what's in the article right now, I believe the math is sound.  So while the article has very grave issues, I don't think it needs to be blown up.  It needs care from someone impartial, that's all.  Ozob (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup. Plenty of Google Scholar hits show notability.  I don't think the article needs to be blown up.  Here the COI is something of a double-edged sword: we have the namesake of a notable concept writing the article, which also means that he is uniquely qualified to write it.  I say we let the article improve in the normal Wiki fashion, rather than (apparently) punishing and discouraging experts from contributing to the encyclopedia.   S ławomir  Biały  13:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup. I am disturbed by the article being created by WP:COI/someing involving with the subject, but that does not automatically bean the subject is not-notable.   I also share the nom's sentiment about the reliance on predatory journals, but I am not willing to declare that such journals are not WP:RS/reliable sources.  So I am willing to give this article a chance, and hopefully it will shape up.-- danntm T C 01:15, 7 March 2016 (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.