Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noise (signal 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 keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Noise (signal processing) (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)
There is already an article with title [Noise] which covers signal processing noise. atnair (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As explained in the talk page, the general sense of "noise" is very different from the technical sense in signal processing. (It is hardly the only example of a common word being borrowed to name a technical concept that has only a vague metaphoric similarity to the original common meaning.)
There is a lot of material on each articles that is not pertinent to the other one. For example, the article about [[noise]] in the common sense must cover aspects such as health, work safety, legislation, human hearing, psychology, etc.; none of these have any relevance whatsoever for signal processing "noise". Conversely, amost every topic relating to signal-processing noise is irrelevant for the common sense of noise, and would be out of place in the [[noise]] article.
Moreover, as you can see in [[noise_(signal_processing)]], the list of such technical topics is very long (and there must be several that I missed). Merely listing them in [[noise]] would completely swamp that article. This is not surprising since "signal processing noise" is a fundamental topic in signal processing. It would be really weird for Wikipedia not to have an article for that concept, only a short section in an article about something else entirely, when it has millions of articles about obscure albums, videogames, politicians, etc..
The mere list of the topics organized by [[noise_(signal_processing)]] would be too long even for noise (disambiguation), and would not fit there anyway because of the strict rules about disambs; for one thing, [[noise_(signal_processing)]] must link to many articles that are not "other meanings of Noise".
Also, there are many non-trivial things that can be said about "signal processing noise" in general, that are better said there than being scattered (and duplicated) over many sub-articles.
Finally, note that the article is reasonably well structured, has some real information, serves some purpose, has no objectionable contents, and was created less than 24 hours ago. Shouldn't people wait a bit longer before summoning a fellow editor to defend the life of his children before the Holy Inquisition? 8-)
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As explained in the talk page, the general sense of "noise" is very different from the technical sense in signal processing. (It is hardly the only example of a common word being borrowed to name a technical concept that has only a vague metaphoric similarity to the original common meaning.)
- Keep The page differs from Noise (disambiguation) by being a set index covering noise purely from a signal processing angle. Template:Noise and Category:Noise both cover the topic but not as comprehensively, nor in a list format. Unless another page already exists covering this information, I don't see a reason to delete. Funny Pika! 05:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I can't put it any better than the two who commented before me. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with the arguments already advanced by Jorge Stolfi and Funny; the breakout article for noise in the context of signal processing is well justified here. --Mark viking (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge There is another page Noise atnair (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, that noise page is very generic. This is a big enough topic on its own to deserve to be spun out. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the reasons given above. The article noise is too generic for this. This is a needed set index. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 February 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.