Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/POLQA


 * 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. Notwithstanding the single-purpose activity, the rough consensus is that the article is based on speculation. –MuZemike 00:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been informed that there may possibly be some sources out there, so I have moved to the article incubator so it can be worked on. See Article Incubator/POLQA. –MuZemike 00:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

POLQA

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable yet. A "work group item", not yet an ITU-T recommendation. None of the references contains the acronym. Google brings up two blog entries, the rest seems to be unrelated, or wp mirrors. Pgallert (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. --Cosmonaut Kramer (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree that WP:CRYSTAL is a factor, also lack of WP:RS. Jusdafax  15:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete - Disagree. Has been selected to go forward for ITU acceptance/recommendatioon in June 2010. I can find more than 20,000 links referring to it via Google, many of them on ITU websites - which are quite reliable/credible sources you would think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdive2007 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete - Disagree. As an expert with 20 years experience in this field I can assure you this info on the new draft (upcoming) ITU Standard is important and notable according to the encyclopedic nature of Wiki. Deleting a new ITU recommendation just gives room to abuse Wiki as currently encountered by some blatant advertisement, see e.g. e.g. [Talk:PESQ|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PESQ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guangsi (talk • contribs) 08:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete - Disagree. This will be the future standard for voice quality testing. The decision has already be made on a study group level to make this a standard in September if things go as expected. There is a very large community desperately waiting for this standard and efforts to develop it were tremendous with contributors from all over the world. BTW: The official ITU work title is called P.OLQA (as stated in the article itself), but it's generally referred to as POLQA only. If you search for P.OLQA you will find many, many hits. Grizzly007 (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to the remarkably uniform do-not-delete votes: Searching Google for "ITU-T Recommendation P.863" gives exactly one hit, and that hit is our Swissqual article. That's why I removed the reference to it, it just doesn't yet exist. You are right that "P.OLQA" gives ITU-T results (I missed that, sorry, my bad), and I am sure you're discussing it internally. The important question is, is it being discussed anywhere outside ITU-T, and can you give a reliable source for that? I found this and this when searching for P.OLQA but both documents do not go beyond a passing mention of the subject. --Pgallert (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly the comment above about remarkable uniformity is unfair and inaccurate. Those "do not delete" comments contain more reasoned content than the deletion comments, are much less uniform and appeared over a longer time frame that than the original deletion comments. So which set is in actual fact "remarkably uniform"? It seems that experts in the field are responding to a lack of knowledge inherent in the proposal to delete this article. Dozens of parties were involved in the standardization discussions over several years in public, not "internally" as stated. There is minimal self-promotion in a well-balanced, non-biased article. It is a UN-sponsored initiative - the ITU-T being a UN body. And it cannot be a crystal ball matter if it actually happening right now - experts in the field all agree this has been selected for standardization. Finally despite what is said (inaccurately) about Google hits above, the fact is that there is no lack of credible public sources for this topic. The web has hundreds of discussion documents, cited academic papers, contributions, journal articles, independent press commentary and even technical books on this subject dating back to at least 2007, from sources that include the ITU, IEE and IETF: www.itu.int/md/T05-SG12-C-0026/en, www.cellular-news.com/story/34066.php, www.aes.org/journal/online/comment/?ID=15252, www.vde-verlag.de/proceedings-en/gs_proceeding/?docid=453120027, tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hunt-avt-monarch-00.txt and hundreds of others. The proposal to delete this article does not help Wikipedia become a better source of information.
 * Comment I have no intention to offend anyone. "Remarkably uniform" referred to the syntax of the votes, and a bit to the unusual situation that someone who hasn't edited im months, or not at all, suddenly turns up in this forum to rescue an article. I do not doubt P.OLQA is being discussed currently, by specialists and experts in the field. But it does not have the status of a rcommendation as of yet, and it has not yet been discussed by a wider audience. Your souces all mention that it exists, and that it is under development, but that is not the issue. An encyclopedia will take it in if it has been discussed (not just mentioned) outside ITU-T. One academic paper discussing the approach under the name P.OLQA and I will withdraw my nomination (the VDE paper I cannot access, it is behind a pay wall). --Pgallert (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The comments above seem to indicate there is some kind of frequency at which one has to contribute to gain the right to create or edit or even comment on Wikipedia articles. I do not believe this is correct or relevant, but for the record I have added around 20 articles to Wikipedia over years under various pseudonyms, and there are several contributions from the various authors above, on topics in which they have interest or expertise. The arbitrary hurdle to post an academic paper, when one clearly exists in a referred publication published by the VDE, is also an imprecise measure. What is relevant, in the imbalanced value system adopted by regular Wikipedia editors that "favors consensus over credentials", is that this subject is being discussed widely in circles where it has meaning, and Wikipedia, as a public source of knowledge, should be able to present basic information on such a topic. In fact I believe this measure is also irrelevant to a true encyclopedia, which includes authoritative content on extremely esoteric subjects; but to this end it is easy to find - in just the top few pages of Google search results - openly available slides from classes being taught at universities including the Technical University of Berlin e.g. the BSc course included a module that discusses P.OLQA, at least 2 Phd theses that discusses the entire subject of speech quality testing including this area, slides from the Institute for Telecoms Science in Boulder CO, and many more e.g. the University of Zilina in Slovenia, Lulea University of Technology. Several discuss the issues with existing technologies and hence the need for this new technology, and there are a wide range of contributions from about 25-30 commercial entities to the discussion. To suggest that this subject is not being discussed is erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdive2007 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Those of us who frequent AfD get used to the appearance of red-linked posters. Whether these are Socks (WP:SOCK or genuine fans drafted in for the occasion is sometimes moot. What does matter is this is not a vote by numbers, but a discussion of the article's compliance with Wikipedia's working procedures. I feel this one fails WP:CRYSTAL. There's many a slip possible when committees are involved - and when financial restraints are commonplace. Peridon (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I certainly know what a sock puppet is, having been a participant to Usenet since about 1980, but why should it be wrong to ask for support if a subject is being deleted in a haphazard fashion? I am amazed by the wide variety of ignorance displayed in this matter in the teeth of support by several experts in the field. Expertise in the subject matter is far more important than an opinion in an encyclopedic context. This is not a matter of having an opinion based on "crystal ball" foresight, this is matter of those judging lacking expert understanding of the context and subject, and ignoring those who do. Vote indented, Deepdive2007 already !voted above. --Pgallert (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My offer stands. Please observe our policies, particularly WP:N, WP:MEAT, and now also WP:CIVIL. I fail to understand how you would judge me/us to be any less expert than you, and I do not particularly like to be called ignorant. --Pgallert (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe this discussion slowly drifts away from its original topic and we should restrict ourselves to the purpose of this page. The above mentioning of WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:CIVIL is purely speculative, not helping Wikipedia and even offensive. Let's stop that. The only thing we discuss is WP:N and as far as this is concerned, the "red-linked" contributor made some very valuable comment (and I don't mind if somebody is concerned of his/her privacy on the internet, as long as the content of the comment is valuable). Also, where would we end up if we did see google as our only source to verify notability? Keeping in mind the many sources mentioned and coming from that specific industry, I can only confirm my above statement that this article is really notable. Grizzly007 (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2010 (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.