Talk:Geometric Poisson distribution

Subject?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)