Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)

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. As noted, the article needs a cleanup, not deletion. Tone 07:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I tried to make sense of this article, but having tracked down the image as a copyvio, and having checked that the formulas are incorrectly inferred relative to the cited source, I'd say there's nothing left worth keeping. See the talk page Talk:Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging). Dicklyon (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, deletion seems an odd choice given that the topic has been written about extensively out there in the real world. If you thought it should be merged to something like Signal to noise ratio, where imaging is discussed and cited to what look to me like 6 reliable sources, that might be ok, but the topic looks easily big enough for an independent article. If it's badly written or contains WP:OR, that's a matter for editing. Better sources are available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dicklyon, why don't you just WP:STUBIFY it? You don't seem to be in dispute with anyone so you probably have a free hand. That way you don't need to do substantial work on it right now, and the page remains open for anyone who wants to improve it. I agree with Chiswick Chap, this is definitely a notable subject. It's a terrible article, full of maths nobody cares about (even if it was correct) and missing basic concepts that might actually help the reader, like the fact that SNR is proportional to root imaging time [1]. But I don't think we need to TNT it in this case. SpinningSpark 14:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Keep as notable. Edit as much as needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP relevant and notable topic WP:NEXIST. Wm335td (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with above, just needs appropriate tags/rewrite if deemed too technical, it is, says coola who also doesn't know anything about NIBS or TIBS. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2019 (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.

OK, I stubbified it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]