Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generational Compression

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Generational Compression

It cites no sources, it's not encyclopedic, it's ridiculously verbose, and it makes my head hurt. Delete as original research. TheMadBaron 15:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• I thought it was just me. Delete as original research, or nonsense (I can't tell which).--GraemeMcRae^talk 15:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not cited. Gazpacho 17:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced OR. MCB 20:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR.--Isotope23 20:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless the article is cleaned up significantly. There seems to be a real theory of generational compression, although I can't figure out what it is. All the Google hits define it as "compressing generations" or some other circular definition. --TantalumTelluride 21:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be something to do with the theory of technological singularity, which I fondly remember being trendy back in the early 1990s, at a time when fractals, The Shamen and Wired magazine were all genuinely hip and futuristic, and we were on the verge of being contacted by big-headed aliens and so forth. Ah, nostalgia. But delete the article; it would take more work to rewrite this text than to write a new article from scratch. Seems to be the magnum opus of two IP addresses, and the thought of all their hard work being deleted amuses me in a sadistic way. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- I consider myself knowledgeable on both the Singularity and the Flynn effect and can confidently say that this page is not just original research, it's nonsense. -- Schaefer 05:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm so happy to know that. I had to read it four times before I thought I had some idea what it was trying to say, and then I felt quite sure that what I thought it meant made no sense, but I still couldn't be absolutely sure that what I thought it meant was actually what it said. I think need an aspirin.... TheMadBaron 09:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I had the same feeling, because my first thought was to try to wikify it. The first thing it needed, I thought, was a topic sentence, so I started this way: Generational Compression is the theory that...     and then I found my self completely unable to say one more word about it. As such, it's a very clever piece of writing, like the Sokal paper--it gives the impression of being meaninful without actually containing any meaning.
• Move to BJAODN. -- Corvus 00:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe you're right. I saved a copy on my personal webpage. It's rare stuff.—GraemeMcRae^talk 03:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No it's not. You can knock out better-written nonsense papers with SCIgen. TheMadBaron 11:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Well I'm not happy at all with the whole idea of randomly generated text.—GraemeMcRae^talk 14:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.