Talk:AIMS microscope

Should remain as a separate entry, since it is rather unique and has been used and created at an important institution such as the University of California, Berkeley. [User:sethgarfield|sethgarfield]] (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I read a few of the articles mentioned on the AIMS microscope page, and as a result the AIMS microscope page should stay as it is and not be merged. Arpadrimler (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The AIMS system as described by Linux Journal was the first fully automated system used to create 3 dimensional models of brain tissue, and other journals that are referenced on the page. Since there is so much detail and so many references to it, it should not be blended into another page. bondiveres (talk) 4 August 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.28.121.134 (talk)

Unfortunately, upon doing a search I found that there is already a page for AIMS. Automated tissue image systems. Searching Automated Imaging Microscope System redirects to that page. It is probably best to delete this page and instead contribute to making the other page better. --- Nihola (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This was a recreation of material previously deleted at an AfD: see Articles for deletion/Automated Imaging Microscope System. --Crusio (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it doesn't seem notable to me given the current sources, I started a section regarding sourcing at Talk:Automated_tissue_image_systems. Nuujinn (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the editors participating in the previous AfD didn't think it was notable and the decision was "redirect to Automated tissue image systems". --Crusio (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I don't think Automated tissue image systems is notable based on the current references. It seems to me that the topic in general should be notable, yes? But the article lacks sourcing showing notability, I think. Nuujinn (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean, I interpreted "it" in your first message as referring to this article (AIMS microscope)... I would think that there should be enough sources to make "Atis" notable, but you are right that that article doesn't have them at this point. --Crusio (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)