Talk:Kaniadakis statistics

	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 was accepted from this draft on 5 May 2022 by reviewer Herpetogenesis (talk · contribs).

Statistics Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Sergio Luiz E. F. da Silva (talk · contribs)

How is this notable?[edit]

I am not in the field but it seems like this academic has published a lot of self-referencing articles that are cited by only a few academics a bunch of times. one of the people citing them is the primary editor on all the Kaniadakis pages. None of the journals this guy publishes in are notable (especially for the number of citations the author gets). Seems like there is manipulation and self-citation happening here. This person appears to add a variable to every distribution and throw his name in front of it. Weird Mr election guy (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I suggest merging all other Kaniadakis pages here. They are variations of the same distribution and not individually notable. The pages include:

Hope I did not miss any. A lot of overly technical detail should be removed after the merger. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. From what I can tell, these distributions really are used in a number of different fields. To infer this, I skimmed Kaniadakis Gaussian distribution and at the bottom, I see a bunch of papers from many different authors. This might be some kind of industry churn (see talk page comment up above), but I can't tell by just skimming. ... Anyway, each of the WP articles are quite long, and very dense with formulas. Piling them into one jumbo article that's mega-long seems like a train-wreck to me. The current article lengths are nicely bite-sized. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]