Talk:Automated tissue image analysis

Copyright infringement
If the AfD turns out to be a "keep" then I am eventually going to go through this and remove vast swaths of text that are lifted from other sources. I invite others to do the same. Chillum 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed vast swaths of text, what was general about various parts of the topic and had not been applied to the subject in the text, and what I found to be obvious copyvios and verified the copyvios. I pared the article, in doing so, from about 54,000 bytes to less than 8,000.  If there are still vast swaths of copyvios that you recognize or think you recognize please err on the side of deleting sooner rather than later.  I'll support you in this.  --KP Botany (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I did not notice. Good job there. Chillum 04:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't hurt to have a second set of eyes, as I was removing incidentally the copyvios, while reading the article to get a handle on what belonged and didn't belong. --KP Botany (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable?
I just took a quick look, it appears that none of the references I could read are actually about the AIM system, but rather related aspects such as cell counting and used of CCDs. I added some citation needed tags, but figure to send this back to AFD for a second look if references cannot be found, just a head's up. Nuujinn (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm getting 0 hits in google news and scholar for "automatic tissue imaging" and "Automated tissue image systems". There are plenty of sources for "Automated tissue image analysis", however. If no one objects, I'm going to move this article to "Automated tissue image analysis", so we can source it properly. This will mean pushing the article toward the general topic, which is a good thing, I think. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems lke the sensible thing to do! --Crusio (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)