Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expansion in spectrograms

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion in spectrograms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Uninterpretable essay. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 06:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article looks like a badly copied version of some paper or book based exposition on this topic. A quick look at the article revealed both a wrong title in one of the references and a couple of serious math errors in the first equation. The topic itself is likely notable, as expanding time frequency transforms in terms of spectrograms can speed up computation of these quantities. But the current article would require quite a lot of work to both convert it to an encyclopedic format and to eliminate the other probable errors in the prose and math. Normally, I'd say 'keep' for a notable topic. but it may be better in this case to blow it up per WP:TNT and start over. I'm on the fence, so no recommendation yet. --Mark viking (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The bulk of this article was created in a single edit; the same is true of the other article created by this editor, Uncertainty principle for the short-time Fourier transform (also being considered for deletion). That sure raises red flags. Both articles include Time-Frequency Analysis by L. Cohen in the references. If someone has access to this book, they may be able to determine whether the two articles are copyright violations. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The other article that Rockmagnetist found was clearly a copyvio. I haven't been able to do the same with this article yet, but suspicions of possible copyvio, when compounded with its essay-like and unencyclopedic nature, lead me to conclude that Wikipedia would be better off without this article. Ray^Talk 19:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as largely a copyvio of Cohen's book. I thought this looked like it was copied from somewhere. Most of the article comes from section 13.7 of Cohen's book. The lead section is copied directly from the lead para of the section. The first part of the General class section, the Hermitian functions section and the Complex distribution are all copied from Cohen section 13.7. The first few equations from the Bilinear transform subsection come from another source. I'm no copyvio expert, but the evidence looks pretty convincing. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have blanked the page and listed it for copyright violation. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:01, 27 March 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.