Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meta noise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meta noise

Neologism. Very few Ghits, many with repeated text from wikipedia article. Artw 00:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOR and non-verifiable. The only reference supplied is a research paper by HP Labs that does not have the term "meta noise" anywhere in it. --Satori Son 01:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)-- Will support Keep with a disambiguation per below. --Satori Son 20:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete GAAAA! This article is infested with neologisms: folksonomy? collabulary?, stop the insanity! --Xrblsnggt 01:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 01:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per Satori Son and Artw AdamBiswanger1 02:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable neologism, fails WP:V. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for being too much of a neologism. MichaelBillington 12:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Have improved cited references for the time being (more constructive than deletion). Folksonomy isn't a neologism, other than collabulary (which was referred to in 'Information Age' article - surely deserving testament? - but not cited in the wiki article). On a point of principle, Ghits should not be cited as 'god', since most academic content is not referenced. Bigpinkthing 13:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: Hello Bigpinkthing. Thanks for the update. If possible, could you please provide some background information on the new Grimes and Torres article that is now included an outside reference source? Has it been published in any way? Thanks again for your time. --Satori Son 14:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Answer Have requested further information from the authors and also found various other uses of the phrase - found lots of blogs using this term casually also - common usage in the field (web 2.0 / metadata) but not citable. In various discussions (going back over a year) on poor meta-data recording (three distinct types of 'meta noise'), 'meta noise' meaning scientifically recorded environmental data that has been corrupted by unwanted physical influence (in a research paper on optics), a metadata tag describing 'noise' (i.e. sound) in addition to the poor use of XML to record small/simple data forms - namely the ratio between XML tag names and the data they contain. I think there's a pretty good case here to keep this article open for further expansion to explain various areas - and that is *only* going on things I found through Google. Eyes hurting now! Bigpinkthing 14:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per current citations. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand if possible since more references have been provided. I understand the subject, but it's certainly not explained well in this entry. (Not that I could explain it better - people in glass houses and all that, so I'll shut up.) Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per new refs. Nice job saving this one. JChap (Talk) 03:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: I don't want to create 4 short articles and a disambiguation page describing the found uses, should these bits of information be put into the main article? The differences are very small but important, and I'd like some guidance. Bigpinkthing 12:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: IMHO there should be a disambig page. The first on the list would link to this article, and the others can just be very brief, non-wikified descriptions for now. Somewhere down the line there might be enough to write the other three articles. --Satori Son 20:28, 15 July 2006 (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.