Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local maximum intensity projection

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 keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local maximum intensity projection[edit]

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

Overly technical, nothing but a dicdef. Does not seem expandable. No sources found. Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks deleteable, as merely a special case of something we cover elsewhere. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess merging would be an option, too, but this looks fairly promotional, which is why I didn't mention it at first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So who or what is it promoting? Citing an author for a non-proprietary technique is a long way from overly promoting that author. The technique is pretty much self-evident to anyone skilled in the arts by taking maximum intensity projection and adding the notion "Local maxima can be used too" Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Maximum Intensity Projection. It's an efficient development of a base technique, and it provides a more readable article to describe both on the same page. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per WP:SK 2e "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". This is because the nomination says that no sources were found when the article already contains a source. That paper by Sato et al is cited in numerous books as you can readily see by checking the link above. The nominator seems to have made this nomination as part of a spree in which the facts of each case are not being checked. Warden (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Maximum intensity projection 62 cites to main paper [1] which is good, but this seems more a refinement of the other article than a completely new technique so a merge is appropriate.--Salix (talk): 22:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge as above: two short articles which will much better serve readers and editors as one. Does not preclude splitting off the topic if one day there is enough for a separate article, but falls far short of needing that now.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see new content. This is a separate technique. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per obvious reasons/Warden. Ryan Vesey 12:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand why this was even nominated, perhaps the nomination should be withdrawn? linas (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google book search and scholar search shows this is a real thing, which people who know this industry do talk about. Dream Focus 23:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK#2 Disparaging nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Overly technical" is not a reason to delete. WP:SOFIXIT, don't delete it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient sourcing showing in footnotes. An ill-considered nomination, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep nomination does not appear to be about the article itself as about the annoying deprodding editor. Eau (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2012 (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.