Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal data compression Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Universal_data_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 was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Universal data compression

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD on a WP:OR article with long-standing major issues. The primary content is a proof which doesn't seem to be notable. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Radagast 3 (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article seems to have 3 parts. The first "definition" is plausible, but unsourced (and probably not the primary use). The "theorem" appears in the proposed merge target, Lossless data compression#Limitations. The last sentence is commentary. And we have no source that the term is used. However, a google scholar search suggests the term is used, but often for any lossless encoding which compresses strings considered "likely". If there was something to be said about that, nothing here (other than a reference to Lossless data compression#Limitations, should be kept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The commentary by Bulat Ziganshin (talk · contribs) — who appears to be the Bulat Ziganshin who is the author of FreeArc (AfD discussion) — on the article's talk page is interesting, and bears out my own research. M. Ziganshin is right, this article appears to have developed from a misunderstanding compounded over the years. I've rewritten the article based upon some sources. I'm not sure whether there's enough in the sources to warrant a separate article. There appears to be some additional material in Ziv+Hershkovitz (cited in further reading) but I don't have full access in order to read it. Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've created an entirely new article that's very much better. Your material might usefully go into Lossless data compression, though, since that article covers much the same territory. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The newly-added cited sources are legit and the definition contained in them is different from the one in the article, and constitutes a topic of legitimate research interest in the theory of data compression. I've updated the definition to make sense and the article should be good to go now. Dcoetzee 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are 1130 papers containing the phrase, so the topic is notable. The article as it stands now seems accurate too. The only issue is possible overlap with Lossless data compression#Limitations, Universal coding and Universal code (data compression). Shreevatsa (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know how often it's used for that concept. In addition to including "...universal. Data compression...", at least some of the papers use the term, but have a completely different meaning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that universal coding and universal codes are (counterintuitively) unrelated topics (except that both are related to data compression). Dcoetzee 00:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the literature "Universal data compression" seems to have several different meanings. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Universal data compression[reply]

Comment. This is no longer the article I nominated, but let me reiterate my delete recommendation for the article in its current form; the article is basically just an unsourced definition (it doesn't appear at all in the book reference #1). -- Radagast 3 (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted because the discussion was not transcluded for a time. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete It is replication of LZ77 & LZ78 page as well as being incorrectly titled. The article is about Universal Data Compression Algorithm. This is clearly covered in detail at Data_compression_algorithm#See_also. It seems to me that it is a page created simply for having the cryptography cats added which could be added elsewhere. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.