971:(ISBN 0-521-49797-3). The article does need rewriting, categorising, to be linked to, and possibly also a better title, but I'm not sure what to suggest for one. The comments about original research are irrelevent: even if it is largely following Deppe's paper, as that's a survey it's reporting the work of others, so wouldn't be OR in any case. The google hits are also not particularly relevent: lack of google hits does not mean something is not notable, especially if there is more than one search term related to the topic. (If anyone wants to, they could google "Renyi-Ulam game" or "Ulam's searching game" instead.) Finally, the fact that it's lain untouched for a while is probably because very little links to it, so no-one had found it to do anything with it. --
997:. It's a well written introduction to an important and interesting topic, and is not OR. Unfortunately the copyright problem is more serious than people realize. It's a copy of a chapter in a book presumably contributed by the chapter's author. However according to the front of the book, the copyright is held not by the author, but by the Janos Bolyai mathematical society and Springer Verlag, so the author seems to have no right to post his own writing. (This is not a joke: in at least one legal case an author was sued by his publisher for posting his own book on the web.) I doubt the math society would object to its posting, but Springer might well do as they are trying to sell permission to view their own posted copy of the article.
1572:-- sheesh, this AfD is ridiculous. My view: the article as it was, was a candidate for deletion. The article as it is now is fine -- it's sourced, etc. Re: the argument over copyvios: Mangojuice is right, the author almost certainly did not have permission to post the original text under the GFDL (permission for use has to be given from Springer according to the front-matter notice, they usually take an author's copyright etc. etc.) I do not have the text in front of me, so can't see whether it's a direct copyvio or not, but perhaps we should figure that out and delete the offending diff if need be? The article itself, however, seems perfectly fine, and maybe we can get the original author to help out with sourcing etc. --
187:. User Cdeppe, probably the author Christian Deppe, copied original LaTeX source code for a few paragraphs from that chapter into Knowledge. Very likely he had heard that LaTeX markup works in Knowledge and gave up when it turned out to be slightly more complicated. If there had been an obvious way for him to delete the article I suppose he would have done it himself. Since it's from a survey paper it might in principle make sense to spend the effort needed to wikify it. But under the circumstances I wouldn't trust that the author actually had the right to publish this excerpt under GFDL. I am not sure about the usual procedures. It should not be deleted in a way that makes it harder to create the page again. --
848:. Which is not at all much. My points were: 1. Low Google counts alone are not sufficient to come to a conclusion in an area where all Google counts are relatively low. 2. Long phrases and technical terminology are often covered somewhere without being mentioned literally. – But since I am not particularly interested in the outcome for this article I will now unwatch this page and concentrate on adding some content to Knowledge, instead of participating further in a long discussion about whether or not because someone spent five minutes adding a copy of an original source we now have to preserve and expand it. --
1478:. However, the stub solution is fine, and I've added the obvious reference. I agree it is optimistic to expect Deppe to come back. Indeed I hope he doesn't right now, to witness how unhelpful Knowledge editors can be, and this unedifying AfD discussion. Your assertion that "there is nothing to save it from AfD" has been countered at every turn. Indeed the article asserts that the topic has been studied by three notable mathematicians, including the founder of information theory, and not including Christian Deppe, who provides a reliable secondary source for this assertion of notability.
541:
an encyclopedic example, and "Throughout this paper we shall call Carole and Paul the two players. This idea goes back to
Spencer, who also explained: Paul corresponds to Paul Erd\"os, who always asked questions and Carole corresponds to an ORACLE, whose answers need to be wisely evaluated" isn't any way to end one. The first paragraph doesn't even tell the reader what the topic actually is. If it's so notable, why does "Error-correcting codes with feedback" and "Error-correcting codes with noiseless feedback" return a combined 25 Ghits? If it's so important, why is this article
1037:. The arguement above about the applicability of "Original Research" distresses me; we're a Tower of Babel about editting philosophy. An author posting his own (published, peer-reviewed) work is no more evil than an artist contributing his own photographs to the public domain. On R.e.b.'s good point, the author quoting a small amount of his own marterial, citing the (copyright holding) source, can fall under Fair Use. The article can be improved with that in mind and does not need to be deleted IMO.
604:. I mean, it's entirely possible that this is a notable topic, but there's nothing in the article (or this AfD) that proves it, or indicates that it is notable enough for a separate article in Knowledge. It might be mildly or moderately important within the world of information theory, but that doesn't necessarily make it notable enough for its own article in Wiki. Is it referred to by a more common name elsewhere? Why would a common Wiki user want to know about this subject?
1359:
sources, that's okay as long as the work is substantially original. What's not necessarily okay is to take a significant chunk of copyrighted text and make some small changes to it: this can be viewed as not a newly created work, but a work directly derived from the previous one, and therefore possibly also a copyright violation. This is an extreme example, but imagine a novel with all the character names changed: clearly, this is a copyright violation. See
384:(Actually, another article linked to it before it existed because I linked it as I was disambiguating.) What you quoted says is this: "If A, publish A, and then A can be on wikipedia." It makes no differentiation between "publish" and "write about it", only that you can't publish to wikipedia as your primary venue. Period. The prose style used in a thesis or book is rarely in-tune with how wikipedia articles are written, but like I said right below is that
600:
article by addressing the citation, notability, and copyright issues raised here, but I guess you don't think it's important enough to warrant your efforts either. I'm perfectly willing to back off my AfD if somebody could establish notability beyond adding the words "it's notable" to the AfD, add the necessary references and citations, explain why the article couldn't be reduced to a few lines in another article such as
1053:'s comment, but not with the conclusion. This should never have come to AfD. The current content of the article is almost certainly a copyright violation, and should be removed: the article is not a critical commentary of the book in question, so is unlikely to be fair use. However, this does not mean that the subject of the article is not notable. The simplest thing to do is replace the current content by a redirect to
921:. I'm really interested in whether or not "error-correcting codes with feedback" as a distinct concept is notable enough to warrant a separate article. Honestly, I can't tell if the title refers to an object (i.e. error-correcting codes that include feedback) or a technique (i.e. using feedback to error-correct codes). For that matter, "noiseless" seems to be a key component, so why isn't that in the article name?
195:) 00:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (I changed my recommendation. I thought that the best use of editing resources would be to remove this and start the article from scratch when another expert becomes interested. While most arguments for keeping don't really convince me, on second thought it makes some sense to attract experts by keeping this article and linking it from
275:"If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Knowledge will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge." - I think it's pretty clear that this is saying 'don't just copy and paste something you published, write
1461:
bit too optimistic to think that Deppe is going to come back to this article. His entire
Knowledge presence has been one single edit: dumping his text into this article, and then left. He didn't even bother to correct some of the characters that didn't copy over correctly, and he hasn't responded to the question on his talk page.
814:" (a former featured article) gets 11,400 that's not at all bad. We can't expect Associated Press to have an article on "Error correcting codes with feedback" once a year. Even if journalists did write about the topic they would very likely not use the exact phrase, judging it unacceptable for a general audience. --
479:. The poster of the chapter is reasonably believed to be the author (cdeppe == Christian Deppe) and so posting the content means the author put it up for GFDL. This is not the place to determine if the author still retained copyright or not. AFD is a bad answer for poorly/non-encyclopedic writing, that's what
1538:
Sorry, yes, of course a redirect would remain. At the time I nominated this, I didn't know of a good article to merge or redirect to, and this also seemed like just another essay-copied-into-Wiki article (which, actually, it was), which get AfD'd without incident fairly regularly. I still think this
1503:
redirects - I'd still like to know why that wouldn't be appropriate), and I've gotten little in return besides indignation, certainly not any assumptions of good faith. At the time I voiced my notability concerns, the only thing the article did was state that these mathematicians considered problems
1494:
don't have access to it and cannot prove its authenticity. You have to recognize that you come into this discussion with a lot more knowledge of the field than what is in the article. My criticisms have been exclusively of the content of the article itself, because that's all I have to go by. I've
1460:
Redirect to what? (Don't read that as a snotty reply - I'm actually curious). The article in this form still faces the same problems as before. I mean, there's still nothing there to save it from an AfD - no citations, no assertion of notability, minimal integration into Wiki. I think it's also a
1337:
However, as
Dominus points out with admirable brevity "No reasonable argument for deletion has been put forward." First it was argued that the article is OR, which is demonstrably false. Then it was argued that it was not notable, but this was amply countered by subject experts. Now it is argued that
1291:
copyvio's, not delete the articles containing them. Knowledge is full of copyvios in edit histories. This issue is probably too big to discuss at this AfD. At some point, Knowledge could be sued for having copyvios in edit histories, but it hasn't happened yet. In my opinion, deletion solves nothing,
1057:
until someone has the time and energy to write a new version which is not a copyvio, and also demonstrates notability in a clear manner. This approach preserves useful information in the edit history for anyone to take this up. Deleting the article destroys this information. I have some sympathy with
1009:
I wonder if this problem can be solved by a suitable paraphrase. On many occasions people have posted material they've learned from a book and included a reference to the book. If it's deleted on copyright grounds then someone would have to replace it with another article of the same title covering
540:
It certainly doesn't assert notability. It has no sources or citations given and seemed to be, as has been established, just copied from elsewhere. "Alfréd Rényi reported the following story about the Jew Bar Kochba in 135 CE, who defended his fortress against the Romans" isn't any way to start off
294:
It says to publish it first before putting it on
Knowledge. Meaning wikipedia is not the primary venue for your research. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an author taking his own work and putting it up for GFDL. Everyone who clicks the "Save Page" button does precisely this. I hate to pull
843:
I see now. Yes, it's the same for me, except I get only 11 (2 don't count because they refer to the
Knowledge article). But it's the same for "regular polytope." First you have to use the quotes to make it comparable: 11,300 hits. Then you have to click several times to get to the last results. Once
334:
means, which is more relevant to this AfD. I also can comprehend unambiguous statements like the one I posted above; if you have an alternate interpretation of the rule I quoted that doesn't ignore the word "about" or interpret the word "cite" as "reprint", I'd be happy to hear it. And no, I don't
254:
No. Those say that even published authors can't write on their own knowledge without citations, but this is from a peer-reviewed book and so specifically not OR. I can't recall if the book is explicitly cited (it probably should be), but that's an editing issue not an OR issue. As to the article,
1346:
Edit histories are full of copyright violations, and deleting them all would be an administrative nightmare. Comments about history serving only a bad purpose, and people getting uppity, are neither based on policy, nor on a knowledge of copyright law. This article could be deleted, but there is no
1303:
When the entire text and the entire history of an article is a copyright violation, it is better to just delete it and place a redirect there instead. The history can serve only a bad purpose in existing as long as we don't have an appropriate copyright release: the information in the edit history
809:
be included. I am not sure that I fully understand the notability criteria in their application to scientific topics (is there no extra guideline on this?), but in any case if this article doesn't meet them then they have to be changed. Otherwise a scientific encyclopedia would inevitably be forked
559:
Lots of articles on notable topics are completely orphaned when they're first created. Many of mine certainly were. An experienced
Wikipedian immediately asks himself "Which articles should link to the one I just created?", then creates those links. The particular newbie Wikipedian we're looking
1358:
I think you don't quite understand what I mean by "derivative." Yes, normal
Knowledge articles that are certainly not copyright violations derive their information from other sources: that's certainly okay, because no one can own the information. Even if they derive some of their text from other
690:
The subject is notable, and the chances are that every one that posted here made use of technology that used this conecpt. The examples are valid in order to develop the concept, although I think the text needs a better introduction, since the reader is not necessarily committed to read the whole
1422:
This is really stupid. The article is simultaneously under AfD review and a threat to delete it on 9th
December. MangoJuice is an admin who should know better than to make procedural alterations to an article under deletion review, however well intentioned those alterations may be. I hope another
613:
You are the only one asserting anything resembling "critical notability"...whatever that means so stopping stating it as that's my — or anyone but your's — assertion. "common wiki user" is meaningless. Just because music is your deal doesn't mean you have to understand why someone would want to
574:
So you're saying that in the two-and-a-half months after this article, not one experienced editor looked and this and saw a need to integrate it into Wiki as a whole, yet the topic is critically notable? Are there any secondary sources that assert notability? Can you add them to the article and
525:
Why would the examples have to go? You need to answer that if you want us to take that assertion seriously. Nothing notable in the concept? "Guide"?? It doesn't read like a textbook or how-to manual, and it's at least as notable as most articles on information theory or mathematics generally.
1342:
does not require deletion of articles containing copyrighted material. If it did, it would say "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then contact an administrator, who will delete the article and then selectively undelete all previous versions not containing the copyright
599:
No catch. If the topic was so critically important enough that it has to stay, an experienced editor would have run across it in a search in the 75 days since its creation, and would have at least linked to it from one outside source or added a reference. Your contributions could help save the
1526:
was what I had in mind (no point in a double redirect!). However, the stub solution seems much better now that both Salix Alba and MangoJuice have improved the content (many thanks to both of them). Since neither solution requires deleting the article, we seem to have reached agreement. As I
1489:
Whoa whoa whoa, I've wouldn't call anything I've done in pointing out the article's shortcomings "unhelpful" and I kind of resent the implication. I didn't just dump an AfD and run away; I stayed and continued to discuss these issues and concerns and what was required to satisfy
Knowledge
409:
had a redlink for the movie long before; that's what I was referring to. It might not have been formatted exactly the same, but coverage of the topic was expected before the article's creation, which is the point of this.) I still think you're ignoring the actual text written to suit an
1078:
per R.e.b., as copyright violation. Geometry guy: while a redirect would not be harmful, we HAVE to delete copyvio content because otherwise it could be used to make still-violating derivative works. The author does not have the sole ownership of copyright in a published work; I know
347:. Comparing this topic to that article really don't really form a strong argument for keeping this. And I'm not giving up on this article because it's never going to be feature article material; I gave up because the article is unencyclopedic and doesn't assert or even seem to meet
369:
May I suggest that you stop this discussion, which really leads nowhere, and that we try to get a consense on the other open questions instead? I hereby excuse for having started this distraction by my unfortunate choice of words. Perhaps I shouldn't post in the middle of the night.
1527:
mentioned earlier in this discussion, with articles like this, replacing by a redirect is often a better solution than AfD. It wastes less editor time. This is the reason I may have seemed irritated in some of my comments. Please consider that option in the future. Thank you.
1143:
have been posted by the author, but (1) the author doesn't own the copyright and (2) we don't even know if it was the author who posted it. If there's a good reason to believe there's a copyright violation, we should delete it rather than expose the foundation to liability.
589:
You do get the inherit catch with your position? You can't get experienced editors to look at it if it's not linked; it's not linked because no experienced users have looked at it. Personally, I won't touch it until this AFD is done with to avoid having my time "deleted".
1320:
The point would that it would prove the administrators took steps to address the problem. Or to put it another way, it would look especially bad if somebody got uppity and sued and proved that the administrators were aware of a copyright violation and ignored the problem.
790:
I just did the search (using your link and opening Google from scratch) from a totally different computer in a different city and got 15 links. I don't know why. If I click to show duplicates I still only get 38. In any case 15 vs. 389 for links is a pretty trivial
983:- Why not ad that reference to the article itself instead of just mentioning it here? Once this AfD closes, that reference will be lost. Also, what search term or terms would most commonly be used for this topic? Would "Renyi-Ulam game" make a better article name?
1334:, almost all of Knowledge's content should be a derivative of copyrighted work. The edit history is useful because it provides editors usernames as well as content. One editor has offered to paraphrase the material: having easy access to it would help.
217:
if it's been published in a peer-reviewed forum outside of
Knowledge first. "Original research", for the purposes of Knowledge's policy forbidding it, is findings posted initially on Knowledge that have not appeared first in refereed publications.
1448:
Yes, it is, and is close to my proposal to replace the article by a redirect for the time being, but I felt reluctant to do that while it was under discussion here. I've added a Wikilink anyway, and hope that your common sense will prevail.
419:
I hate repeating myself. It says "If A, publish A, and then A can be on wikipedia" but the details of the wording doesn't matter as the spirit is this: wikipedia is not the primary venue of publishing, which this is not such a case.
1417:. On 2nd December MangoJuice replaced the page with a copyvio template which threatens to delete the page within one week if it is not changed. I doubt that will encourage anyone, least of all Christian Deppe, to repair the article.
1242:
the user that posted the material was the author, which we don't know. The norm in this kind of situation is that we remove the material, and allow it only given an explicit release of the material under the GFDL, registered with
810:
off Knowledge. I get the 389 Google hits for "Error correcting codes with feedback". (And without drastic measures like reducing search to the US I can't reproduce anything like Torc2's numbers.) Considering that the phrase "
279:
it,' and it's only permissible to cite the article. We can debate whether or not that meets the definition of the phrase "original research", but it's clear that it's the Wiki policy on original research is what covers this.
1263:
I agree with Mangojuice here: we should assume that the material is copyrighted unless there is evidence to the contrary. However, as Michael Hardy points out, the copyvio can easily be fixed by paraphrasing the article.
721:
If the concept is notable, why does searching for the article title on Google return almost no hits aside from the Wiki article itself? Is there anything about this that couldn't be summed up in one or two lines on the
1304:
is not "useful" to those who would want to write a new article, because it would be derivative of a copyrighted work... and in the meantime, copyrighted material continues to be available from the Knowledge web site.
1490:
guidelines. Realistically I could have submitted this as a prod or copyright violation; the article would have vanished with little notice and nobody would have missed it. I couldn't add the reference myself because
1196:
Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the
1079:
Springer-Verlag's copyright agreement it uses with authors, and the author agrees in it to assign the copyright to Springer, and cannot publish the work otherwise. So yeah, this is a copyright violation.
1495:
made entirely constructive suggestions about what the article is missing, what would be required to salvage it, and how it might be more appropriate to present the information in another article (such as
828:
I just did the search using google.co.uk and got 393 hits initially; however, when I went to the next page, the sites found reduced back to 15 total. I also return 277,000 Ghits for "regular polytope".
631:, not something I made up. The article has to do this; my background is irrelevant to the fact that the article simply does not. Please do not make this personal, since it certainly is not about that.
335:
expect a new article to be perfect, but I do expect one that's supposedly important and notable not to be totally orphaned and in the horrendous state this one was 75 days after it was created. As for
1347:
case for doing so. Hence my comment that this AfD is a waste of editor's time, and we should simply close it and replace the content with a redirect, until someone has time to paraphrase or rewrite.
963:. As the book chapter by Deppe is a survey article, covering work by Spencer, Ulam, etc., this suggests the subject is notable. There are also other surveys on this and related subjects, such as
92:
87:
144:
the article with a bit of work could be turned into a decent article or at least a stub. There is certainly an extensive literature on the subject from a variety of different authors.
96:
1423:
admin will be able to close the AfD before the threatened deadline, otherwise, we run the risk to waste yet more editor time with a DRV because of the procedural mess this creates.
79:
119:
1062:
articles which should simply have been replaced by redirects. I encourage others to take on board this option, as it saves a lot of time discussing issues like this at AfD.
755:
339:, ignoring the changes in policy and the amount of traffic Knowledge has picked up since 2005, I would point out that your article effectively asserted its notability in a
433:
it says, and that is not the limit of the policy. With the number of eyes on any that policy, the wording is not haphazard and incidental: it means what the words say.
1434:
The obvious solution is to rewrite it to remove the copyvio, which has not happened yet. I've been bold, removed 90% of the text creating a rather week stub. --
773:
503:
What in that article could you keep? The examples would have to go, and there's nothing notable about the concept in the article. The whole thing violates
1139:
provide proof that there is no copyright problem, not the other way around; we know this is based on text lifted directly from a copyrighted work. It
183:
Yes it's original reasearch, although possibly peer reviewed, and in any case related to the author's PhD thesis. It is a chapter of a Springer book:
83:
949:. R.e.b.'s point below about the copyright issue is important. The article content should be replaced with something unobjectionable. --
1504:
related to the general field of error detection; it did not clearly state that they focused any non-trivial effort on this specific topic.
75:
67:
1584:
1548:
1533:
1513:
1484:
1470:
1455:
1443:
1429:
1409:
1385:
1374:
1353:
1325:
1315:
1298:
1270:
1258:
1225:
1155:
1130:
1113:
1090:
1068:
1041:
1025:
1014:
1001:
987:
975:
953:
941:
925:
908:
870:
857:
838:
823:
800:
785:
767:
749:
735:
716:
700:
682:
635:
622:
608:
594:
584:
569:
554:
535:
516:
498:
449:
424:
414:
398:
379:
364:
322:
289:
270:
249:
227:
208:
170:
156:
135:
61:
903:
265:
1539:
might be better merged and redirected to the main error coding article, but I'll leave that up to you folks working on it. Thanks.
866:
Regardless, the search litmus test doesn't assert verifiability as there are plenty of sources not indexed by the masterful google.
1522:, but you did not suggest leaving a redirect instead of deletion, which would have solved the disagreement. Anyway, a redirect to
1367:
1308:
1251:
1148:
1106:
1083:
1343:
infringement" instead of "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, the infringing content should be removed".
17:
445:
while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." This article doesn't have a single citation. Not one.
1523:
1519:
1496:
914:
723:
601:
560:
at doesn't yet know that that should be done. And I get 389 google hits with the title of the article in quotation marks.
1230:
My point is that there is plenty of reason to believe that we don't have adequate permission for this material. You are
429:
You're still ignoring the rest of the text. It does say Knowledge is not the primary venue of publishing, but that's not
913:
True, but that begs the question of whether or not this topic could better be served by a section or mention in either
1247:. If someone wants to try to write to author and to Springer and get that explicit release, we can always undelete.
437:: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Knowledge, but it
1599:
696:
36:
1598:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
712:
technologies require this concept? The article needs to address these questions if it's to assert notability.
844:
you are there the number of hits is reduced to 370. It's still approximately the same ratio, 35, i.e. 1 1/2
745:
678:
565:
531:
336:
299:
223:
890:
1529:
1500:
1480:
1475:
1451:
1425:
1381:
1349:
1294:
1266:
1064:
1054:
1021:
899:
441:. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may
261:
196:
1439:
853:
849:
819:
815:
692:
375:
371:
298:
You also seem to expect that a new article be perfect. Let me prove you absolutely wrong. Consider
204:
200:
192:
188:
152:
886:
615:
310:
status. By no means do you give up and delete an article just because it's not feature material.
1406:
1405:
I have sent an email to Christian Deppe asking him to rewrite it to avoid the copyright problem.
1011:
845:
781:
741:
674:
561:
527:
494:
318:
219:
1540:
1505:
1462:
1322:
984:
922:
830:
792:
759:
727:
713:
662:
632:
605:
576:
546:
508:
446:
411:
356:
281:
241:
162:
127:
894:
256:
57:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
145:
1579:
1038:
811:
507:. I would have edited it if there was a single thing salvageable and notable for Knowledge.
483:
406:
388:
1238:
normal for material from a book that isn't self-published. And while we're at it, you're
1544:
1509:
1466:
1435:
1364:
1360:
1305:
1248:
1145:
1103:
1080:
834:
796:
763:
731:
580:
550:
512:
360:
285:
245:
166:
148:
131:
439:
does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources
1244:
1059:
670:
666:
1331:
1222:
1127:
972:
867:
777:
619:
591:
504:
490:
434:
421:
395:
343:, was improved by others within a week, and was already linked to by another article
314:
237:
233:
49:
950:
938:
328:
53:
113:
1292:
because administrators can still view the copyvio. And adminstrators are people.
1573:
1339:
1284:
1173:
1050:
998:
628:
348:
184:
1363:; specifically, look at the second blockquote and you'll see the difficulty.
355:
be worth a line or two in another article, but it's not stand-alone material.
740:
The article title in quotation marks (exact match) returns 389 google hits.
1338:
it must be deleted because it probably contains copyrighted material. But
1283:
I agree that the author does not own the copyright. However, if you read
918:
805:
I think that the subject of the article is sufficiently notable that it
1058:
the nominator, as I have in the past made the same mistake myself, by
126:
Original research, not encyclopedic, reads like somebody's term paper
758:
and still got 15 results. That aside, 389 really isn't much better.
295:
out this card, but you don't understand what original research means.
161:
Can you add any evidence of notability specifically for this topic?
937:. No reasonable argument for deletion has been put forward. --
1592:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1221:
that the author has no rights. Very arrogant of you, kudos.
1234:
the author has the right to release under the GFDL, which is
410:
interpretation of the rule that favors keeping this article.
1518:
I apologize. Yes, I see you mentioned adding a few lines to
306:
as a one-liner stub. It took 18 months but it achieved
307:
303:
109:
105:
101:
1379:
Thanks for clarifying. Of course, I agree with that!
1019:
Yes, a paraphrase would obviously solve the problem.
691:
article, but may want a quick explaination up front.
1102:now that the article no longer violates copyright.
627:Asserting notability is one of the requirements of
394:is the way to handle such articles, not deletion.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1602:). No further edits should be made to this page.
312:It's all the more reason to edit and improve it!
1172:Oh boy a "no you are wrong" pissing war! From
885:You still get pretty good results by searching
8:
185:Coding with Feedback and Searching with Lies
673:thought it was notable, then it's notable.
1126:Otherwise it's speculation on your part.
1049:, but as a redirect for now. I agree with
1285:WP:C#If you find a copyright infringement
1174:WP:C#If you find a copyright infringement
1122:Please provide proof that this is true
7:
76:Error-correcting codes with feedback
68:Error-correcting codes with feedback
891:"Error-correcting codes * feedback"
24:
887:"Error-correcting codes" feedback
1010:more-or-less the same material.
255:I have no opinion at this time.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1524:Error detection and correction
1520:Error detection and correction
1497:Error detection and correction
915:error detection and correction
724:Error detection and correction
602:Error detection and correction
1:
1326:21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
1316:21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
1299:19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
1226:22:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
1217:It is you asserting that you
1156:21:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
1131:19:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
1091:19:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
1069:18:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
1042:17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
1015:18:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
1002:17:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
988:21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
976:16:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
969:Surveys in Combinatorics 1995
954:17:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
942:14:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
926:21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
909:13:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
871:14:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
858:12:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
839:12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
824:11:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
801:07:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
786:06:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
768:03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
750:03:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
736:03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
717:21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
701:03:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
683:02:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
636:22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
623:21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
614:read about ECC w/feedback or
609:21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
595:14:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
585:11:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
570:03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
555:03:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
536:02:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
517:02:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
499:01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
489:and regular editing is for.
450:22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
425:21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
415:21:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
399:14:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
380:10:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
365:07:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
323:06:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
290:04:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
271:02:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
250:02:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
228:02:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
209:11:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
171:11:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
157:00:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
136:23:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
1585:02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
1549:21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
1534:21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
1514:20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
1485:09:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
1471:01:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
1456:00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
1444:00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
1430:00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
1410:20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
1386:17:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
1375:16:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
1354:12:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
1271:12:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
1259:04:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
1114:14:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
1026:12:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
62:20:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
1619:
967:by Ray Hill, published in
215:It's NOT original research
302:. I started the article
1595:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
726:or some other article?
337:Richard III (1955 film)
300:Richard III (1955 film)
240:specifically say this.
1501:error correcting codes
1476:Error correcting codes
1055:Error-correcting codes
754:I just double-checked
327:I understand what the
197:error correcting codes
616:feedback vertex sets
965:Searching with lies
846:orders of magnitude
772:Take out "num=100"
345:before its creation
661:and clean up. If
232:Actually, it is.
180:
1583:
1570:Keep as it is now
907:
269:
178:
1610:
1597:
1577:
1499:where the topic
1372:
1330:Er, last time I
1313:
1256:
1153:
1111:
1088:
897:
812:regular polytope
708:is it notable?
488:
482:
443:cite that source
407:Laurence Olivier
393:
387:
308:featured article
259:
117:
99:
34:
1618:
1617:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1600:deletion review
1593:
1368:
1361:derivative work
1309:
1252:
1219:KNOW FOR A FACT
1149:
1107:
1084:
693:Graeme Bartlett
486:
480:
391:
385:
304:three years ago
90:
74:
71:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1616:
1614:
1605:
1604:
1588:
1587:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1419:
1418:
1412:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1344:
1335:
1318:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1071:
1044:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
992:
991:
990:
958:
957:
956:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
719:
685:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
520:
519:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
382:
297:
296:
175:
174:
173:
124:
123:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1615:
1603:
1601:
1596:
1590:
1589:
1586:
1581:
1575:
1571:
1568:
1567:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1532:
1531:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1502:
1498:
1493:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1483:
1482:
1477:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1454:
1453:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1428:
1427:
1421:
1420:
1416:
1413:
1411:
1408:
1407:Michael Hardy
1404:
1401:
1400:
1387:
1384:
1383:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1373:
1371:
1366:
1362:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1352:
1351:
1345:
1341:
1336:
1333:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1324:
1319:
1317:
1314:
1312:
1307:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1297:
1296:
1290:
1287:, we have to
1286:
1282:
1272:
1269:
1268:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1257:
1255:
1250:
1246:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1198:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1175:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1157:
1154:
1152:
1147:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1129:
1125:
1124:in this case.
1121:
1115:
1112:
1110:
1105:
1101:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1089:
1087:
1082:
1077:
1076:
1072:
1070:
1067:
1066:
1061:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1045:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1033:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1013:
1012:Michael Hardy
1008:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1000:
996:
993:
989:
986:
982:
979:
978:
977:
974:
970:
966:
962:
959:
955:
952:
948:
945:
944:
943:
940:
936:
933:
927:
924:
920:
916:
912:
911:
910:
905:
901:
896:
892:
888:
884:
872:
869:
865:
859:
855:
851:
847:
842:
841:
840:
836:
832:
827:
826:
825:
821:
817:
813:
808:
804:
803:
802:
798:
794:
789:
788:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
770:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
752:
751:
747:
743:
742:Michael Hardy
739:
738:
737:
733:
729:
725:
720:
718:
715:
711:
707:
704:
703:
702:
698:
694:
689:
686:
684:
680:
676:
675:Michael Hardy
672:
668:
664:
660:
657:
637:
634:
630:
626:
625:
624:
621:
617:
612:
611:
610:
607:
603:
598:
597:
596:
593:
588:
587:
586:
582:
578:
573:
572:
571:
567:
563:
562:Michael Hardy
558:
557:
556:
552:
548:
544:
539:
538:
537:
533:
529:
528:Michael Hardy
524:
523:
522:
521:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
501:
500:
496:
492:
485:
478:
475:
451:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
427:
426:
423:
418:
417:
416:
413:
408:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
397:
390:
383:
381:
377:
373:
368:
367:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
333:
330:
326:
325:
324:
320:
316:
313:
309:
305:
301:
293:
292:
291:
287:
283:
278:
274:
273:
272:
267:
263:
258:
253:
252:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
230:
229:
225:
221:
220:Michael Hardy
216:
213:
212:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
159:
158:
154:
150:
146:
143:
140:
139:
138:
137:
133:
129:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1594:
1591:
1569:
1530:Geometry guy
1528:
1491:
1481:Geometry guy
1479:
1452:Geometry guy
1450:
1426:Geometry guy
1424:
1414:
1402:
1382:Geometry guy
1380:
1369:
1350:Geometry guy
1348:
1310:
1295:Geometry guy
1293:
1288:
1267:Geometry guy
1265:
1253:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1218:
1195:
1150:
1140:
1136:
1123:
1108:
1099:
1085:
1074:
1073:
1065:Geometry guy
1063:
1046:
1039:Pete St.John
1034:
1022:Geometry guy
1020:
1006:
994:
980:
968:
964:
960:
946:
934:
895:CRGreathouse
806:
709:
705:
687:
658:
542:
505:WP:NOT#GUIDE
476:
442:
438:
430:
352:
344:
340:
331:
311:
276:
257:CRGreathouse
214:
177:
141:
125:
45:
43:
31:
28:
791:difference.
575:cite them?
545:orphaned?
341:single line
181:No opinion.
1436:Salix alba
850:Hans Adler
816:Hans Adler
756:the search
543:completely
372:Hans Adler
201:Hans Adler
189:Hans Adler
149:Salix alba
776:. 389.
774:like this
238:WP:NOT#OR
142:week keep
1240:assuming
1232:assuming
1223:Cburnett
1128:Cburnett
1060:prodding
973:RFBailey
919:feedback
889:or even
868:Cburnett
778:Cburnett
620:Cburnett
592:Cburnett
491:Cburnett
422:Cburnett
396:Cburnett
315:Cburnett
120:View log
1415:Comment
1403:Comment
1332:checked
1245:WP:OTRS
1007:Comment
981:comment
951:Dominus
947:Comment
939:Dominus
667:Shannon
484:cleanup
389:cleanup
179:Delete.
93:protect
88:history
54:Bearian
1574:phoebe
1289:remove
1075:Delete
1051:R.e.b.
999:R.e.b.
995:Delete
669:, and
435:WP:COS
351:. It
332:policy
234:WP:COS
97:delete
50:WP:HEY
1541:Torc2
1506:Torc2
1463:Torc2
1370:juice
1365:Mango
1323:Torc2
1311:juice
1306:Mango
1254:juice
1249:Mango
1197:GFDL.
1151:juice
1146:Mango
1141:might
1135:No.
1109:juice
1104:Mango
1086:juice
1081:Mango
985:Torc2
923:Torc2
831:Torc2
793:Torc2
760:Torc2
728:Torc2
714:Torc2
663:Renyi
633:Torc2
606:Torc2
577:Torc2
547:Torc2
509:Torc2
447:Torc2
412:Torc2
405:(No,
357:Torc2
353:might
329:WP:OR
282:Torc2
277:about
242:Torc2
163:Torc2
128:Torc2
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1580:talk
1545:talk
1510:talk
1467:talk
1440:talk
1340:WP:C
1100:Keep
1047:Keep
1035:Keep
961:Keep
935:Keep
854:talk
835:talk
820:talk
797:talk
782:talk
764:talk
746:talk
732:talk
710:What
697:talk
688:Keep
679:talk
671:Ulam
659:Keep
629:WP:N
581:talk
566:talk
551:talk
532:talk
513:talk
495:talk
477:Keep
376:talk
361:talk
349:WP:N
319:talk
286:talk
246:talk
236:and
224:talk
205:talk
199:. --
193:talk
167:talk
153:talk
132:talk
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
48:per
46:keep
1236:not
1137:You
917:or
807:can
706:How
618:.
431:all
118:– (
1582:)
1547:)
1512:)
1469:)
1442:)
902:|
893:.
856:)
837:)
822:)
799:)
784:)
766:)
748:)
734:)
699:)
681:)
665:,
583:)
568:)
553:)
534:)
515:)
497:)
487:}}
481:{{
392:}}
386:{{
378:)
370:--
363:)
321:)
288:)
264:|
248:)
226:)
211:)
207:)
169:)
155:)
147:--
134:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
1578:(
1576:/
1543:(
1508:(
1492:I
1465:(
1438:(
1176::
906:)
904:c
900:t
898:(
852:(
833:(
818:(
795:(
780:(
762:(
744:(
730:(
695:(
677:(
579:(
564:(
549:(
530:(
511:(
493:(
374:(
359:(
317:(
284:(
268:)
266:c
262:t
260:(
244:(
222:(
203:(
191:(
165:(
151:(
130:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.