Simple file verification – "No consensus" closure endorsed. Interested editors are free to continue discussing a merger. Sandstein 15:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Simple file verification (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Closed as no consensus, but I count: three deletes (counting my nomination), two 'trim and merge', and a single 'week keep or merge'. If I was closing this and was feeling inclusionist, I'd close it with a WP:SOFTDELETE redirect to the merge target or just as a merge. While the comments are split between delete and merge, I don't see how this could be interpreted as a simple 'no consensus', de facto defaulting to keep, given the current comments. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| reply here} 04:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Looking at the final comments discussing sourcing, by an editor who did not submit a bolded !vote, improved the article a bit, and their comment on sourcing was nor refuted or challenged in any way over the next week, it's a reasonable way to read the trajectory of the multiply-relisted discussion: no further comments were forthcoming, nor was another relist likely to generate more. It's a very weird discussion, with not a lot of strong feelings expressed, which is why I don't disagree with the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Closing admin: Exactly as Jclemens puts it, there is nowhere close to a consensus that the sourcing is insufficient after considering the late-submitted book source; those who wished to challenge it had a week to do so. Also, if we're !vote-counting, one of the "delete" !votes is from a sock and doesn't count. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. No consensus was within the range of closer discretion on this one. Ignoring a comment because the poster forget to, or didn't know they were supposed to, bold a recommendation is (possibly accidentally) disingenuous on the part of the nom. The proposed merge target was an utterly inappropriate place for this material to live, so I'm not surprised that that wasn't the decision. SpinningSpark 07:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] KEEP (or worse case is a merge) - Here is my vote that I forgot to do last week. Even today, this file type is still being created in a subpart of the internet. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Well, after that discussion, what we now have is a short article on simple file verification that needs expansion and more sources, and another short article on file verification that needs expansion and more sources. It's disappointing that file verification wasn't even considered as a merge target. I think it boils down to this: we've closed the discussion roughly in accordance with the procedure but we haven't reached a particularly good outcome. IMV the optimal solution doesn't involve any sysop tools, because we can do everything we need from here with a ((mergeto)) template and a talk page discussion.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Cyclic redundancy check is the proper target. SFV merits maybe a sentence there, as a once fairly widely used implementation of CRC32, and most of the article is about CRC anyway rather than SFV itself. File verification is a much broader subject of which CRC is a subset. —Cryptic 00:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse – There's a pretty clear consensus that some content should be preserved (particularly when the sock !vote is discounted), but not much agreement about how to do it. Particularly given that several participants were decidedly unsure of how to proceed, I don't think that "no consensus" is unreasonable. Obviously, the closure shouldn't be understood to preclude a talk-page merger discussion: there's certainly an appetite for merging the content somewhere. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Simple file verification – "No consensus" closure endorsed. Interested editors are free to continue discussing a merger. Sandstein 15:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Closed as no consensus, but I count: three deletes (counting my nomination), two 'trim and merge', and a single 'week keep or merge'. If I was closing this and was feeling inclusionist, I'd close it with a WP:SOFTDELETE redirect to the merge target or just as a merge. While the comments are split between delete and merge, I don't see how this could be interpreted as a simple 'no consensus', de facto defaulting to keep, given the current comments. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Looking at the final comments discussing sourcing, by an editor who did not submit a bolded !vote, improved the article a bit, and their comment on sourcing was nor refuted or challenged in any way over the next week, it's a reasonable way to read the trajectory of the multiply-relisted discussion: no further comments were forthcoming, nor was another relist likely to generate more. It's a very weird discussion, with not a lot of strong feelings expressed, which is why I don't disagree with the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin: Exactly as Jclemens puts it, there is nowhere close to a consensus that the sourcing is insufficient after considering the late-submitted book source; those who wished to challenge it had a week to do so. Also, if we're !vote-counting, one of the "delete" !votes is from a sock and doesn't count. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No consensus was within the range of closer discretion on this one. Ignoring a comment because the poster forget to, or didn't know they were supposed to, bold a recommendation is (possibly accidentally) disingenuous on the part of the nom. The proposed merge target was an utterly inappropriate place for this material to live, so I'm not surprised that that wasn't the decision. SpinningSpark 07:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP (or worse case is a merge) - Here is my vote that I forgot to do last week. Even today, this file type is still being created in a subpart of the internet. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after that discussion, what we now have is a short article on simple file verification that needs expansion and more sources, and another short article on file verification that needs expansion and more sources. It's disappointing that file verification wasn't even considered as a merge target. I think it boils down to this: we've closed the discussion roughly in accordance with the procedure but we haven't reached a particularly good outcome. IMV the optimal solution doesn't involve any sysop tools, because we can do everything we need from here with a ((mergeto)) template and a talk page discussion.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Cyclic redundancy check is the proper target. SFV merits maybe a sentence there, as a once fairly widely used implementation of CRC32, and most of the article is about CRC anyway rather than SFV itself. File verification is a much broader subject of which CRC is a subset. —Cryptic 00:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – There's a pretty clear consensus that some content should be preserved (particularly when the sock !vote is discounted), but not much agreement about how to do it. Particularly given that several participants were decidedly unsure of how to proceed, I don't think that "no consensus" is unreasonable. Obviously, the closure shouldn't be understood to preclude a talk-page merger discussion: there's certainly an appetite for merging the content somewhere. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.