The result was delete. â PMCâ (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
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 Ćukaszyk himself, and is about his own PhD thesis. It was already deleted for these reasons back in 2009, after which Ćukaszyk restored the article.
In the previous AfD Ćukaszyk 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 [1] 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 Ćukaszyk WP:CANVASSED from the Polish Wikipedia. Ćukaszyk has since then been blocked for sockpuppetry. Tercer ( talk) 20:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
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'easter ( talk) 22:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. â PMCâ (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
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 Ćukaszyk himself, and is about his own PhD thesis. It was already deleted for these reasons back in 2009, after which Ćukaszyk restored the article.
In the previous AfD Ćukaszyk 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 [1] 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 Ćukaszyk WP:CANVASSED from the Polish Wikipedia. Ćukaszyk has since then been blocked for sockpuppetry. Tercer ( talk) 20:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
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'easter ( talk) 22:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)