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. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microsphere projection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non notable neologism coined in a master's thesis written by Dudziak, a remarkably similar name to the article's primary contributor, Dudzcom. Only 143 Google hits, most off-topic and all remaining ones related to this thesis paper. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, at least until we can get more eyes on this. It looks like a reasonable article, though it may need to be moved to a better name. I admit it does look a bit like WP:VANITY, but the article looks keepable... until/unless something else surfaces, I'd not want to lose this. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It can be recreated by somebody other than the author of the only reference. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm pretty sure that Jehochman is correct in that the subject is only published in a Dudziak's Master's thesis. Apparently )see talk page), some other papers are submitted or in press, but they are all by Dudziak. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom & Jehochman, vanity promotion of non-notable work. Pete.Hurd 07:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pr. WP:NOR. The article is not written encyclopedical, and the mathematics need some years of work in order to introduce rigor (naturally this requires far more than a Master's thesis), which should be in place before it is possible to write an encyclopedic entry for it. All talk about illumination, microspheres and projection is mostly just wrapping, which probably will not be there if this ever becomes a standard algorithm. --Berland 07:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agreed; this concept has only just been published, and by one person. If it becomes notable, the article can be restored. Someguy1221 08:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 10:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NOTE because it does not cite independent sources. Gandalf61 11:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not yet notable, per Jehochman. • Lawrence Cohen 13:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete from mainspace, I suggest moving this to a user sub-page such as User:Dudzcom/Microsphere projection until the submitted papers have been published. Tim Vickers 15:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Though this article is properly wikified and well illustrated, it appears to violate WP:NOR and lacks reliable sources that comment on the method. The comparison of this method against other interpolation methods is not very complete or satisfying, and lacks full descriptions of any of the alternatives. EdJohnston 01:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOR Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:11, 28 September 2007 (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.