Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital look-alike

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 delete. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Digital look-alike

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

promo The Banner talk 23:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: also, created as an orphan by a one-edit user who registered same-day (albeit 12 hours earlier). —Geoff Capp (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, delete. It seems the user has since worked on improving the article in good faith, going through the usual struggles with Wiki style. Another good example why we need to encourage new editors to improve existing articles for a while even more before letting them create new ones. Maybe it could be userified? Or some material suggested to be merged into, say, computer-generated imagery? Or merged into Paul Debevec since it is somewhat a promotion for his work. His article right now is mostly just talking about how his awards, listing movies without a source, and in-line promotional external links. From the categories perhaps the intent was to focus on using computers to intentionally fool people. I suppose that might be a topic if enough sources are found written about that aspect. But now it seems a bunch of statements about movie special effects? I just checked a few of the "sources" and they do not seem to use the specific term "digital look-alike". One calls it "Digital Cloning" for example. This article right now is still an orphan and has so many other problems. W Nowicki (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2013 (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.