Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medireview

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 redirect to Scunthorpe problem. L Faraone 00:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medireview[edit]

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

I'm not sure this topic passes WP:GNG. A Google search (medireview -wikipedia) returns minimal results, some unrelated to the Yahoo error, such as the Medical Marijuana Review. While a few pages may still have this word out there, on the whole, the topic seems like an unimportant historical footnote. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER encourages us to consider "the enduring notability" of topics, and I don't really think this one has any. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge into Scunthorpe problem may be appropriate. --BDD (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps merge the citations, but clearly every word ever mis-spelled by software does not deserve an article! W Nowicki (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a random "word mis-spelled by software", it's a problem (semi-notorious about ten years ago, written up on Slashdot etc.) whereby people's words were transformed without their knowledge or consent into gibberish. "Clbuttic" has already been merged with Scunthorpe problem, but unlike Clbuttic, Medireview never involved any words considered naughty by anybody... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about a merge/redirect to Email filtering, new section Email filtering#False positives, or similar? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scunthorpe problem. Going through the Google results, it seems this has gotten more coverage than your average misadventure in filtering, but probably not enough to meet GNG, as BDD notes. The Scunthorpe article is pretty listy as it is, so this could probably just be thrown in as a bullet point. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Scunthorpe problem is about problems caused by "text contain[ing] a string of letters that are shared with an obscene word". This does not apply to Medireview... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The word medireview is not notable. The Yahoo incident is probably barely notable. The concept of "dumb" filters for antivirus (as opposed to censorship) is certainly notable. As written, this deserves a section in some other article. Scunthorpe problem isn't quite appropriate, as it's not quite the same problem, but I think it would be acceptable. If not for the neologism I'd suggest moving it to Medireview problem and populating it in parallel to Scunthorpe problem with similar examples. AdventurousSquirrel's merge suggestion is reasonable. Autocorrection might be as well. (I am aware that I have not !voted). -- stillnotelf is invisible 14:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into new section in Scunthorpe problem.Cleckheaton Cloghoppers FC (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scunthorpe problem. Labels are not definitions. The Scunthorpe problem is not a problem afflicting Scunthorpe (the place or the name); it is a problem inherent in some implementations of filtering software. "Medireview" is an example of such a problem. That Yahoo's blacklist included words that were not considered obscene is irrelevant. Cnilep (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I recall a lot of publicity about this at the time, including the fact that this error had gotten into résumés and even some scholarly publications. People working in the field were genuinely asking "What's this new word I'm seeing everywhere?" So for one small coding error it had a very wide impact. Of course, it is more of a historical footnote now, but I came to this article today because I cited it to a colleague in order to avoid repeating the same mistake in a different context. I will be sad if the article has disappeared next time I try to refer to it. Bovlb (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Scunthorpe problem as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2013 (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.