Talk:Statistically improbable phrase

This article was nominated for deletion on September 6, 2015. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I would imagine that if this kind of analysis were to be used on blogs or essays it could make for a wonderful new matchmaking tool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.144.249.197 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As SIPs is (potentially) a generic term and not confined to Amazon.com space, then I think it should have its own page Geneffects 21:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wow. Another useless entry.

Nice enough examples, but really does a terrible job of actually explaining the concept and the practice.134.241.224.121 20:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are there any related statistical models or methods out there? Some references or connections would spice this up nicely. 15:35, 5 April 2007

I'd like to have the SIPs algorithm to use as a tool, something like this http://www.onelook.com/reverse-dictionary.shtml reverse dictionary (24.68.170.164 19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

Regarding the "citation needed" tag for the phrase's more general usage (which stemmed from this edit): you can get 400 hits from search://"statistically improbable phrase" -amazon/ as of January 2008. I mostly hear "SIP" used in chat rooms and other places (without reference to Amazon); I'm not sure what the best way to provide a Wikipedia-quality citation is, but am pretty sure it's in general use now, for some reasonable definition of "general use". --Karl Fogel 15:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Eh, looking at the "Google hit" metric in detail (the results returned above), it doesn't seem remarkable or reliable. Application of the phrase (SIPs) in contexts other than Amazon appears to mean whatever the person typing the term wants it to mean. I don't see a consistent meaning as stated in the article (noted above as flagged for supporting citation). I also didn't note anything resembling a reliable source commenting on the usage stated. Perhaps it was overlooked? D. Brodale (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I can't find them with any searches. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Amazon has apparently trademarked a common phrase and wikipedia is advertising this feature. I'm not sure that meets notability requirements. Is there any reason this article not to nominate this article for deletion? -- Louiedog (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I don't see where the advertising is. Does this mean that any article about Amazon is automatically spam? If you still think it should be deleted, raise the matter at AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article contains the phrase "SIPs with a linguistic density of two or three words". What does "linguistic density" mean in this context? Could lexical density be what is meant here? — The Anome (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply