Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warpalized

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 redirect to Image warping. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warpalized[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism; gets a total of 4 ghits, 3 of which are Wikipedia or related to the addition to Wiktionary. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The word warpalizer (with a final R) seems to exist and to refer to a specific commercial product (see here for a google search). Now, from there it looks like the concept covered in the article is probably notable, even if the word "warpalized" itself is not and it refers to a specific product. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Warpalizer" gets zero gnews hits, and its ghits look like largely sales pages and fora, so I'm not sure the product itself qualifies. The concept can possibly be part of video wall or multi-monitor... or the two pages that are currently inappropriately listed as external links. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Image warping (which could possibly use a merge with Image geometry correction). I see the word being used a little in literature, and I think that the commercial product Warpalizer is named after the concept and not the other way around (i.e. it isn't being pushed by the company), but in the end it is not truly established so it doesn't warrant a stand-alone article — Frankie (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:53, 5 November 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.