This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
I suspect this article as written by Stoogestc123 covers the wrong subject. A Google Scholar search for "Geometric Poisson distribution" shows dozens of papers going back decades, and some of them clearly state that the geometric Poisson distribution is the Pólya-Aeppli distribution, a special case of the compound Poisson distribution. If what Xie and Liao write about is not that, then unlike the Pólya-Aeppli distribution, theirs apparently has had no significant impact and probably is not notable. They simply misuse an already well-defined name for their own invention. Also, the journals they've published in are a rather strange choice for new theoretical results in mathematics (as was claimed in this edit summary); in fact, both papers by Xie and Liao look extremely applied to me, not even remotely theoretical. In summary, this article should be about the Pólya-Aeppli distribution, the one that's called the geometric Poisson distribution by the vast majority of reliable sources. That will probably require quite a bit of work. Huon (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as I voiced similar concerns during article creation. The Pólya-Aeppli distribution has been around for decades and is the dominant form of what is called the geometric Poisson distribution. --Mark viking (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article is written by me. The new distribution is only a by-product of the references. After I created this title "Geometric Poisson Distribution", I noticed that Pólya-Aeppli distribution is named as "geometric Poisson distribution" decades before. While, my purpose of using the name "Geometric Poisson Distribution" is simply that this new distribution is a general case which covers both Geometric distribution and Poisson distribution as its special cases (this is a notable distribution and deserves further investigation). Note that, Pólya-Aeppli distribution does not have this property. So if possible, can we make a change for this title? Something like "Xie-Liao distribution"? Thank you for your comments. Stoogestc123
You should take a look at WP:SELFCITE and WP:COI. Writing about your own discovery is not a good idea, and I see no indication that the Xie-Liao distribution indeed meets our notability criteria - has anybody but you written about it in some detail? Huon (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found the property, e.g., MGF, of this new distribution is interesting, and it can be applied to many real-world problems. However, further studies are required before it becomes "notable" (I do not know the definition of your notability criteria). That is why I create this article to share some ideas. It is not because I think it is "notable". So if you could provide some advice, I would really appreciate it. Thank you very much. Stoogestc123 — Preceding undated comment added 06:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See the general notability guideline for what Wikipedia considers notable; topics that are not notable should not be covered at all. You seem to mistake Wikipedia for a research journal. Sharing new ideas is not what we're here for; we don't deal with original research but only with what has already been discussed in reliable sources. Huon (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
