Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field of view (image processing)

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. kur ykh 09:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Field of view (image processing)

This article is a content fork of angle of view; different name for identical concept, but written from the POV of optical instumentation instead of more generic cameras. The author agreed to a merge, but then backed it out when I pressed him to work on integrating it better, in terms of style and content. To the extent that there is new content here, it remains welcome in angle of view, but not just by inserting this article. He needs to actually work on figuring out what here is new, and merge it in. Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely this is a content/editorial issue, not a deletion issue? if merge is the right thing, then the contents aren't suitable for deletion? MadScot (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a merge issue; it was a new article, then it was merged, sort of, then forked again; I thought maybe letting the author know that the fork would be deleted would help encourage him to do the merge. But isn't content forking a typical reason for article deletion? Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mergehese articles under one or the other name. A bit of research is needed to determine the most commonly used name. Each article starts by saying they are basically the same. No deletion of referenced material is required, since the subject, by either name, is notable. Edison (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The field of view name is taken for another use already (visual as opposed to camera oriented); the concept described in detail in this new article is totally in terms of angle, of a camera, and the angle of view article has long covered that concept, so there's no excuse for the new fork, and no reason to even consider a new name at this point. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Talk:Angle_of_view#Merge_proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Field of view article covers photography too and so, if merger is appropriate, that's where all this should go. None of this justifies deletion of any article though. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I can't see anything here not already covered by the other articles. However, if any of the content is salvagable, I'd rather have that done first. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but where? There is yet another POV fork at Field_of_view. Field of view (image processing) seems to differ from Angle_of_view only by the bibliography an the fact that calculations are done in pixels; Field_of_view has less math, and seems to be "biological camera" rather than "technological camera" perspective, but it's the same thing otherwise. VG ☎ 09:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does actually have some novel content in how to compute an angle of view from measurements of images of test equipment. But it's done in a cryptic and belabored way; I'm willing to help clean it up, if we can get the author to cooperate and start working on it; but taking it back out to a separate article was a step backwards; we need to delete that and work on stuff that's in the history now of angle of view. Dicklyon (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The little extra it has is not worth keeping the article around just to satisfy GFDL (see below). Someone can add that info to another article from scratch. VG ☎ 15:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a merge proposal which does not belong here. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to contradict, but the discussion does belong here. The normal merge discussions have deadlocked (see above). This is a legitimate procedure to solicit a broader consensus for material that's 90% duplicate of another article, so outright deletion is a potential outcome. VG ☎ 07:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you wish to retain 10% or more of the article so deletion is contrary to our licence terms. RFC or a third opinion is where you should go to resolve your dispute. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well known fact that merges done with the current Wikimedia software violate GFDL when both articles have a non-empty history. Using this as argument against deletion is utterly silly if not trolling. VG ☎ 10:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MERGE and Section 5 of WP:GFDL. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand your point now. VG ☎ 15:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - no arguments have been made that would warrant deletion over a redirect. Nominator has admitted to using AfD to make a WP:POINT to the article's primary editor. (This seems well-intentioned, but is perhaps misguided.) --Karnesky (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you do support converting it back to a redirect; that's really all I wanted, not a literal delete. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of some delete support, it seems the consensus is that we work this out as a merge issue; so I've restored the merge contents and redirected to angle of view. I retract my delete proposal. Someone close this... Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2008 (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.