conflict-of-interest concerns, this should not have been closed so quickly. XOR'easter (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Checkuser note: The creator of the article, Guswen, has socked using a confirmed sockpuppet SicilianNajdorf. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions 20:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Relist due to canvassing and sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the accusation of one-time editing raised by XOR'easter is going too far. One can infer from it an accusation of ignorance in the subject under discussion (" !votes were from single-purpose accounts"). I am an old-school electronics engineer, and I have worked for many years scientifically in the field of device durability and metrology having to handle issues related to the metric under discussion. PawełMM (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist despite the presence of socks and canvassing, legitimate "keep" arguments were made and
WP:SIGCOV was provided, though there were also solid "delete" arguments. I think the best case is to relist, strike the arguments made by confirmed socks, and see if consensus can develop over the next several days. FrankAnchor 12:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Relist (I participated in this discussion) I agree with XOR'easter that the closing was a bit premature. I'm not sure what PawełMM means here by "going too far." It's easy enough to look at the edit history of an account and see that the only post the account has ever made is on this one AfD. PianoDan (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. On the face of it, this could easily have been a no-consensus close, which would have had the same effect as the actual close, but the canvassing and sockpuppetry finding motivate increased scrutiny rather than the easy close. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist since facts have emerged that suggest the !vote was flawed. I have not formed an opinion on whether the close was sound. —
Endorse. My name is Szymon Łukaszyk. I am the author of both the article and the metric and contribute to English Wikipedia as Guswen and to Polish Wikipedia as Gus~plwiki.
I hope that the following list summarizes the objections raised during the discussion:
"no evidence of sufficient coverage in independent sources" PianoDan, "insufficient evidence that people have cared enough about it for us to write an article" XOR'easter, "citations do not directly relate to the topic" jraimbau, "Novelty and usefulness are also unrelated to notability" PianoDan.
I believe that I have refuted this objection by providing references to numerous publications reporting on successful applications of this concept (mainly in various interpolation algorithms), as well as its further analysis, improvements, adaptations, recoveries, etc.
2. Misconception (Tercer original objection for deletion)
"the conclusion is that it is a misconception", "if you had done it correctly it would satisfy the 'identity of indiscernibles' and would be a metric", "your function is not a distance"
This objection is based on an econometrics preprint, whose author himself admits that his consideration does not greatly affect the merit of the article, where otherwise conclusive results in applied physics are presented. Furthermore, the LK-metric proved to be useful in practical applications. Thus, it is not a "misconception" and this objection is refuted.
This objection is based on a 1995 publication concerning "The generalized Weber problem with expected distances" and disclosing an expected distance between two regions that indeed corresponds to the particular 2-dimensional form of the LK-metric of mutually independent random vectors for bounded distributions.
I believe that I have refuted this objection by non-exhaustively comparing the scope my PhD dissertation with this equation. Even if this concept was hinted by this 1995 publication (of which I was unaware, until XOR'easter brought it to my attention), it was not further researched and generalized, until 2003.
"the mathematical content of the article is entirely trivial, judging from the article itself the work it describes consists in putting one's name on (a particular case of) what should be named 'expected distance between two random variables'"
This is not true. Such an "expected distance between two random variables" was hinted only in 1995 and further researched and generalized only in 2003. Furthermore, this objection also contradicts the misconception objection: clearly an "expected distance between two random variables" is not a misconception.
"we would fail as a community if we let that stand"
This is not true. This distance function was discovered and researched by me (Łukaszyk) and revised by the supervisor of my PhD dissertation (Karmowski). That’s the origin of the name of this function, under which it is prevailingly known in the literature.
6.
WP:COI
That’s a fact. But is that a sufficient, standalone reason to delete this article from Wikipedia?
7.
WP:CANVASSING
Indeed, I asked on Polish Wikipedia for engagement in this discussion, as I stood alone against many (Prof. Karmowski, the supervisor of my PhD supported me but - by not being Wikipedian - did not see any possibility of his personal involvement).
Nonetheless, my request for engagement in this discussion might have led to the provision of further arguments to delete this article. Those who engaged might have agreed with already submitted arguments to delete this article and, perhaps, provide new ones.
Furthermore, as I announced at the end of the
WP:COI issue and asked him to improve the article, which he did by adding "Earlier research", "Practical applications", and "Further research" sections. SicilianNajdorf and Gus~plwiki
are separate accounts belonging to different people.
Ps. The discussion was closed before I managed to reply on XOR'easter objection of 20:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC) stating that "Brutovsky and Horvath use a different distance between probability distributions and say that the topic of this article 'should also be mentioned' in the last two lines of the appendix".[reply]
That's not true. Brutovsky and Horvath clearly state (cf. p 9(240), l. 34-40) that "A further perspective in the analysis of tumors consisting of several spatial compartments should also be mentioned". They point that in "such case, the consequences of random switching could be readily quantified using Lukaszyk-Karmowski distance". Guswen (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guswen under point 7, you note you raised it on pl-wiki while completely avoiding any mention that you did so in a fashion that was i) a biased message ii) a biased audience iii) non-transparent (you didn't note its activity at the afd). Between that and the sock @Dreamy Jazz I am surprised you haven't been sanctioned Nosebagbear (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was amazed that this article is considered for deletion 20 years after I defended my PhD dissertation and 13 years after it has been created on English Wikipedia. No doubt, I reacted emotionally, which was a shoot in the knee, in a way. For example, when the article was put under the deletion discussion I was invited to improve it. And I should have done so (e.g. by introducing "Practical applications" and "Further research" sections), prior to voting on the discussion page. However, as soon as I voted, I was thanked by
WP:COI
and deprived of the right of further edits to this article. Clearly, I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, and I don't know the intricacies of all the procedures.
But what do you mean by "biased message", "biased audience", and "non-transparency"?
I placed a question on Polish Wikiproject:Math saying “Czy mogę prosić o Wasz merytoryczny udział w tej dyskusji na angielskiej Wiki?”, i.e. „Can I ask for your substantive participation in this discussion on the English Wiki?”.
What's biased and/or non-transparent in this question? And to what kind of audience should this question be addressed?
As PawełMM correctly pointed "the content of the article deals with a rather hermetic field such as higher mathematics" and "discussing such specialized issues as the article raises should be done by those with expertise in the field under discussion".
And as I said, those mathematicians who participated might have, as well, agreed with already submitted arguments to delete this article, instead of voting "Keep". Guswen (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were not "deprived of the right to edit the article." You should never have edited the article in the the first place.PianoDan (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I gave two examples of biased phrasing in my statement above. As for the rest of that
wall of text, I will only say that if you wish to reply to arguments raised in the deletion discussion, you should !vote for it to be relisted. See the purpose of deletion review. XOR'easter (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Relist. I do not see how the keep !voters demonstrated the concept, as described in the article, has received significant analysis in independent RS to the extent that a standalone article on it is merited (and much less so at the invented citogenic title). As several delete !voters noted, most of the "implementations" in other papers alleged by the author don't actually use or discuss the L-K metric in a substantial way beyond mentioning/citing it. The fact that this topic seems to have already been described previously, as acknowledged even by the (sole?) valid keep !voter, further weakens the argument for a standalone with this treatment. JoelleJay (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It was a good close and a good result. Yes, the author has made several blunders. But the topic has been adequately sourced, and COI and other problems are now dealt with. The suggestion above to the author that You should never have edited the article in the the first place[3] is very sad and seems to reflect the annoyance others are feeling too, but that annoyance has no place in this discussion, nor has that claim any basis in policy. Andrewa (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa ?? Except for the BLPSELF policy Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself. But beyond that, post suggestions on the article talk page and the COI guideline COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Not to mention the socking and canvassing in the AfD, which invalidates many of the keep !votes... JoelleJay (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the COI problems have not been dealt with. The additional COI text recently added by a puppet was removed, but the article was top-to-bottom COI when the deletion discussion started, and it's still in that state now. If resolving the COI concerns was a prerequisite to closing the discussion with a keep, then the discussion shouldn't have been closed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a reminder, this is a deletion review. The point here is NOT to argue over whether the article should or shouldn't be deleted. The point is to evaluate the Article for Deletion process ITSELF. Was the discussion closed too early? Were there problems with the AfD process? Should the discussion be reopened because of those procedural issues? Whether or not the article is notable is not the topic under discussion here. PianoDan (talk)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
WP:G3 appears to be outside of the criteria. It is also otherwise disputed, because 1) concerns about editor conduct can be addressed in other forums, and 2) it seems best for the encyclopedia to allow this AfD discussion to continue. I discussed this with Bbb23 at their Talk page after they deleted the page. Beccaynr (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn - I participated in this AfD and !voted to delete the article. Per
vandalism, i.e. blatant and obvious misinformation or a blatant hoax. Concerns about conduct have been addressed in discussion with the nominating editor, and based on the circumstances of this article and the deleted discussion, it seems best for the encyclopedia to allow this AfD discussion to continue. Beccaynr (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Request temporary undeletion - access to the AfD history may be helpful to participants here. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn. Just as we would not delete an article that was created for vandalistic purposes but then updated and contributed to in good faith, nor should we do so to an AFD. The absolute most that should be done is the AFD closed as speedy-keep. Bearing in mind the 2nd AFD was opened less than an hour after the first closed, that would probably be appropriate. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Overturn speedy deletion, but speedy keep. I'm not immediately seeing anything in the AfD that constituted vandalism, it was disruptive (the same nominator almost immediately starting a new AfD with the same rationale after the first discussion was closed as keep) but that is a reason to speedy keep the article rather than speedily deleting the AfD nomination. The speedy keep would be procedural - I've not looked at the article and so have no opinion about the notability of the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the
WP:SKCRIT basis for this AfD? During the AfD, I provided further reasons for deletion and the only keep !voter withdrew their !vote after a review of sources and discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I haven't seen the 2nd AFD but if it's as described then it would be 2c I guess "making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.164.154 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SKCRIT#2 includes "The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion" so it does not appear to apply. Beccaynr (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn and reopen or at worst speedy keep and let someone relist with a better deletion rationale if there is one. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It was certainly disruptive, but it wasn't vandalism. It should probably be speedily kept though as we shouldn't allow editors to immediately re-nominate just because they don't like the result. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the deletion and close as speedy keep - while the creation of the AfD wasn't vandalism it was started less than an hour after the previous discussion was closed, which is clearly inappropriate. If the nominator wanted to contest the closure of the previous AfD they should have come here instead, and otherwise they should have waited a while. Hut 8.5 11:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The page was not vandalism and there was a lengthy discussion between CT55555 and Beccaynr as well, so this did not qualify for G3. ✗plicit 13:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with @Beccaynr that letting editors see the conversation might better inform this conversation, because while I voted keep at AfD#1 and complained about the renomination at AfD#2, I was also persuaded with withdraw my keep vote at AfD#2. Was this "vandalism"? I'm not sure. Was it bad process? Absolutely. Should we be forgiving to new editors who make process errors? I think yes. CT55555 (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, procedural keep, and take to DRV Creating a new AFD for the same article just hours after the first one was closed is bad process and disruptive, but it is not vandalism. As such, the deletion of the AFD should be overturned, the AFD should be closed as Procedural keep with a short note about the renomination, and a DRV discussion should be opened. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:6D9F:EF76:E543:D571 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Renominating so quickly is certainly disruptive, but the editor in question was new and likely just wasn't familiar with the procedure for challenging deletions (see
procedural close with a pointer to DRV would have been the best response. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE, and I am sorry I managed to miss this, but now I know how to better proceed if a similar situation arises in the future. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn and reopen. I can't see what was in the AfD originally, but if the whole reason for speedying the discussion was that renominating so soon was vandalism, then that was clearly an improper response after other editors had engaged. It also seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to overturn to procedural keep and then make participants relitigate everything in another DRV, especially if the first AfD didn't have a problematic close. We should instead just reopen it so people can participate with the prior arguments intact. JoelleJay (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
anyone who wishes to renominate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Incorrect interpretation of consensus Trimfrim20 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep. I played an active role in supporting keep in the deletion discussion. I think most of those commenting (on both the keep and delete sides) were very well aware that Mr Perry was not the Mayor of London, but the dispute was whether or not he met notability criteria as a local politician (Mayor of London is automatically considered notable). As
WP:NPOL in his own right - and not for the reasons mentioned in the closing of the deletion, or a mistaken assumption that he was Mayor of London (which I don’t believe anyone in the discussion believed was the case). Trimfrim20 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn to keep or no consensus (not a participant in the discussion) I'm not sure how I would vote in the AfD, but the majority of editors participating in the discussion argued that the politician had sufficient coverage after he was elected to be notable either via NPOL or GNG. Close reads like a supervote (t · c) buidhe 16:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep or relist. Not counting the nominator (see below) there were two delete !votes, one of which was a reasonable but disputed interpretation of
WP:NPOL, the other stated that because the subject was not Mayor of London they didn't meet the GNG, which is clearly incorrect (no office can preclude someone from meeting the GNG). On the keep side, there were four !votes, only one of which was possibly under the mistaken assumption they were mayor of London - and even that is not completely clear given they start by saying "London Boroughs means...". Together with the other comments by those favouring keep, the assertion that they fail NPOL is clearly fully refuted. The other argument made for deletion was that they don't meet the GNG but additional sources mentioned, especially those presented in the discussion by Goldsztajn, at the very least show that is not clear cut. Closing as keep or relisting for further commentary on the additional sources would have been valid outcomes (no consensus wouldn't have been wrong, but given discussion continued right up until the day of closure a relist would be the better choice). Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn I !voted keep in the discussion. Close is a supervote, absent of any analysis of the discussion (and FWIW I cannot detect any keep contributor having any confusion over the status of London Borough mayors). There was no refutation of the sources presented in the discussion. At minimum a no consensus close or relist. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus the closer misinterpreted consensus and incorrectly discounted the “keep” votes. Sources presented in the discussion were not refuted by the nom or any “delete” vote. or relist to allow more time for consensus. But there clearly is not consensus to delete. FrankAnchor 23:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus I do not think the close was accurate in saying that the keep voters were confusing Perry's position with the Mayor of London - it seems clear they were referring to London Borough mayors. They should not have been discounted. Pawnkingthree (talk)
Overturn to no consensus or relist (involved) I was surprised by the close, even if I agreed with it (Note I mistakenly said fails GNG when I meant NPOL). A relist could determine whether the sources provided (and they came late in the discussion) are sufficient to meet GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist - There was no consensus after one week, and the participation was in between minimal (usually relist) and extensive (don't relist), so that a relist is the best idea. The reason for discounting the Keep !votes appears to be a !vote. It doesn't look as if they actually said that. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the views here I have no objection to a speedy overturn of my decision and relist of the debate. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep (involved). None of the keep votes confused his post with Mayor of London as the closer claimed. Clearly no consensus to delete. Consensus appears to be to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Definitely a bad close. I think this would benefit from further discussion, as I don't think there is a strong enough consensus for either keep or delete. Curbon7 (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. It's quite clear that the close was not a faithful summary of the discussion nor that it weighted votes properly. I weakly prefer a relist to closing as no consensus; either would work, but giving the discussion a bit more time seems to be apt given the controversial close. —
Endorse. There is not, and never has been, any consensus that London's borough mayors are "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to pass NPOL #2 on substance, and the argument that such a consensus exists did hinge on citing a precedent that explicitly talks about the citywide
reliably sourced than this was. If somebody can write a better article about him than this was, then that's fine and doesn't require the original deletion to be overturned before it can happen — but there is not even one city on the entire planet whose mayors would ever be deemed "inherently" notable enough to keep an article that was as unsubstantive and poorly sourced as this. Even an actual citywide Mayor of London would still need more substance and sourcing than this had. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Your response seems to ignore
WP:NEXIST and it is worth noting that you !voted Delete in the Deletion Discussion. It also totally ignores the reasons that this close was poor - regardless of your views it did not represent the debate that took place in any way, shape or form. Your comment here also ignores a number of views put forward after your original comment, most notably those by Goldsztajn.Trimfrim20 (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Goldsztajn's arguments weren't strong ones. For one thing, they were simply incorrect about how mayoral notability works. Firstly, the size of the community that they're mayor of is irrelevant to the process, because there is no population test in
WP:GNG is not simply a question of counting up the number of footnotes it's possible to add to an article, but also takes into account the depth of any given source, the range of sourcing and the context of what each source is covering the person for, so sources can add verifiability without actually building notability, because those are two different tests. Mayors aren't automatically notable just because you can show a piece of "mayor elected" and a piece of "mayor misses meeting due to illness" and a piece of "all the mayoral candidates debate" and a piece of "mayor reopens local pool" — every mayor of anywhere can always show that sort of cursory and minor coverage. Mayors become notable when you can write a substantive and well-sourced article that analyzes their long-term political impact, by detailing specific major projects they spearheaded and specific effects they had on the long-term development of the community, and on and so forth, but nothing of that calibre was really possible to extract from the sources Goldsztajn offered. That might certainly become possible in the future, but it wasn't evident in the sources Goldsztajn actually offered. Bearcat (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Relist. Closing on the same day that a substantive !vote with sources was made seems poor form. Relisting would give others a chance to analyze those sources. JoelleJay (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist to give time to evaluate the sources provided. I'm also not convinced that the closing statement that the keep !votes are mainly predicated on the incorrect inference that Mr. Perry is Mayor of London really represents the discussion. The first keep !vote explicitly says Mayor of a London Borough; the second says London Boroughs means pretty big mayors; the third mentions Directly-elected mayors in the UK (which could include boroughs). These arguments were not predicated on the subject being Mayor of London, but on him being mayor of someplace big enough to count. XOR'easter (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
