Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyeball search

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 move to a serious subject. `'Míkka >t 00:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eyeball search

To these eyeballs, this looks like a definition, and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Historically significant expression. `'Míkka >t 08:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a dicdef. Didn't even read like one. Although it does need cleanup. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems to be mostly humour (geddit) but the useful bits can go into Visual search which is a better article on the same topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A good suggestion, but IMO rather different subjects. Yours is a rather low-level perception related research area, related to analysis how vision works and cooperates with brain. `'Míkka >t 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also you have a good point about "mostly humor". Humor stripped, the correct article title would be visual inspection, a missing topic with millions of google hits. So I am bold to rename and let it grow with serious material. `'Míkka >t 23:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note that, while looking for relevant articles, I found another slangy one called vdiff which I turned into Visual comparison. One doesn't need AFD to do this cleanup work. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (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.