Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automated Tissue Image Systems


 * 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   no consensus. the reason for not re-nominating immediately after a non-consensus close is that a reasonable interval offers a better chance for consensus to form; this is an example--we are no nearer consensus this time. I'd suggest waiting at least a month to see if there are improvements. DGG (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Automated Tissue Image Systems

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

See WP:Articles for deletion/SureClick—while SureClick was straightened out, this article was not. Copyvio, nonsense, copy & paste from other articles, irrelevant tangents, and "under construction." Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have removed the AFD tag from Automated Tissue Image Systems. You can't AFD an article that just went through the AFD process. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 02:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Sureclick is a different article. Please don't remove the AfD template. If you have an issue with it take it to the appropriate admin board. I believe there is already a discussion at WP:ANI. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But they were both nommed for AFD in the same AFD. Policy states an article that just came from AFD can't go back into AFD so soon. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 03:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy also states that we can ignore all rules if there's a good reason to. Why are you so intent on derailing this potentially useful discussion on a technicality?
 * Why are people so intent on not following policy? That's what it's there for. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 03:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy is there to suppress constructive debate and sweep it under the rug? Really? Reyk  YO!  04:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wish to insist, the closing can be listed at DRV, where it will, with respect to ATIS, be overturned, with a direction to relist, and then we'll be right back here. 69.212.65.147 (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, DRV is where it should have gone since policy is an article that just went through AfD can't go through it so soon. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 12:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy doesn't say that at all. It discourages nominating articles again and again in the hope of getting a different outcome, but it does not forbid relisting articles if there's a good reason. Reyk  YO!  01:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete At least some of this is a copyright violation from: here/here "Algorithms should checked for accuracy. Recalls have occurred because algorithms were incorrectly copied from a source". If not deleted then someone needs to vet this extensive text for copyright violations. That sentence was the first one I checked. Chillum  05:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Now that the copyright infringements have been removed. Chillum  04:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete- Some of it is also copied straight from here. Reyk  YO!  05:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean-up per the AfD that ended less than 40 hours ago amongst other reasons, this article has wp:Problems which should simply be addressed through regular editing. Plenty notable devices and given the intensified interest in stem cell research I imagine this is useful information but it does drill way down when that may not be needed. Obviously copyvio issues should be addressed but I suggest purging away and rewrite which may alleviate those concerns.  -- Banj e  b oi   09:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the AfD that ended less than 40 hours ago and clean up the article. Regardless any copyvio concerns, it's a notable thing and the article just needs some TLC. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 12:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete The copyright issues as well as what could be construed to be promotional text should be addressed, but the article constitutes an interesting read on a notable subject and there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it were. Unomi (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that should the outcome of this be delete, that the page is moved to the userspace of the creator so that he may continue improving it. Unomi (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am copying it to my userspace and should it be deleted here perhaps it can one day emerge as a cleaned up article. Unomi (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per many above. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it's a copy vio, delete the copyvio immediately.  Article is written so badly it's rather embarrassing if its copied from elsewhere.  --KP Botany (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - as :
 * I've looked, and I haven't been able to find any policy page that says an AFD ending in "No consensus" cannot be sent through AFD again shortly thereafter. If that's policy, fine, but it should be written down somewhere. Me, I just thought of the new AFD as equivalent to re-listing, which is what I thought was going to occur when it was closed, instead.
 * OTOH, when Articles for deletion/SureClick was closed, MBisanz (the AFD's closer) didn't take the AFD message off of Automated Tissue Image Systems. My guess is that that was because he didn't realize that it was part of the AFD. I'm not blaming him for that in any way, just myself—I realized later that I'd written it up in such a way that it wasn't obvious that two articles were covered. Consequently, I figured it was a good idea to run it through AFD as an individual article.
 * Yes, there's some copyvio in the article. And some nonsense. And some copy & paste from at least one other WP article. And some unrelated babbling. And some... well, I'll just quote T L Miles, writing about SureClick during :"I've removed all the things that have only tangential references to the subject. These include 90% of the text, as there were entire FDA regulation texts and manuals on product testing and complaint processes. I can only hope that these were copyvio, cause otherwise the writer has real issues."IMO, Automated Tissue Image Systems has more issues than SureClick did, and needs at least 90% of its text cut to be worth keeping. Unfortunately, it's written so randomly that I can't tell which parts (if any) are worth keeping. And with copyvio issues, I'd rather we got rid of it entirely than keep it around in the hopes that someday, someone might take action to clean it up. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments in response to some of the above:
 * Note that the previous AFD did not end as Keep, but as No Consensus. They're not the same thing.
 * How about one of you that wrote, "it shouldn't be deleted; it should be cleaned up", go clean it up? Me, I can't make heads or tails of the thing, so I can't do it. If you think that part of it is worth keeping, figure out what that part is so that we can at least get rid of the copyvio.
 * Unomi: I'd be fine with userfying if I thought the original author cared. Given that about the original CSDs and AFDs, and his response was to, I don't think that he's interested. And in particular, I don't think moving copyvio text into user space solves anything.
 * KP Botany: if you can tell which parts are copyvio, please feel free to delete them. I can't tell; all I know is that whenever I put in a line or two into Google, I almost always find it elsewhere. Does taking two lines each from 20 different articles and using them verbatim count as fair use? What if it's all copied from many other sources, two lines at a time? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you put in one line and it turns up just about the same in google, delete it. Don't sweat fair use, just delete every single line copied from another source.
 * It's kinda funny, actually, reading the article. "Communicating test results involves presenting data (in text and graphic forms) to the system user in a format that is not only friendly to oncologists or qualified system users for verification and further analysis, but should also be as realistic as the actual specimen and not introduce additional artifacts."  It's not even English.  So, no need to be concerned about whether or not we can fairly use it, we dont' really want to use this on Wikipedia.  And, yes, you're correct, moving copyvio text into user space does not address anything.  Anyway, I started from the top, feel free to start at the bottom and meet me half way.  --KP Botany (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take it and see if I can do something with it. I don't know if this is the proper way, but I have created atis in my userspace, feel free to hack away at it there. Unomi (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Nevermind KP is already pruning it in place.

← Check my prune, though, please. I hacked most of the article away. Most of the article was too detailed about the technical parts of the system and the microscopes which are not what the system is about, it's mostly about its software, but it requires the high end digital micrograph acquisition and processing systems. Their details belong in their articles. --KP Botany (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)--KP Botany (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find myself still baffled by it. For instance, the preparation section (so far as I can tell) says, "Preparation is important. Do this, then do this. The resulting inconsistency is why we use ATIS." Are the described steps part of ATIS, or what's been obsoleted by ATIS? The references and external links section needs to be integrated into the article as inline citations, assuming that they back up what the article says. Much of it is just jargon that the initial author threw in, so far as I can tell.
 * This is should not be in any way read as disparaging of KP Botany—as I said, I'm not even capable of doing what he was able to. But I do think that after 90% is thrown out, what's left shows that there's a stub of an article at best. I'd rather see it deleted so that someone who knows their stuff can start fresh. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The listed steps are standard tissue processing protocols. In the United States, for medical tissue, these processes are rigidly regulated to guarantee a standard of outcome; however, they involve human beings doing the processing and leave plenty of room for errors in every step.  What automated tissue imaging systems in the fixation step is take the human error out of parts. The microscopes and microscopy techniques were simply a list of microscopes and techniques commonly used in the biological sciences, although heavy on widefield fluorescence systems.  The software components were standard components and deconvolution algorithms used in digital imaging systems.  That's why I removed most of these sections, or rather what I did to the article: I removed all material that was in-depth or listed information about general applications of digital imaging in microscopy or general histology applications and had not been directly related in the text to the subject.  I'm fine with a stub or deletion.  Pop the references into my user space if the article is deleted. I'm trying to get a few things done in a hurry.  --KP Botany (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. We need the Medical project to have a look at this. -- Banj e  b oi   09:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a legitimate medical thing to have an article about. No reason not to have it.   D r e a m Focus  19:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But is this what they're actually called? And do you have a single reliable source showing that this is the proper title for the article, and expanding a bit upon the, so I can at least accurately write the stub?  I can't sort through all those sources, the first few were not useful.  --KP Botany (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Google says the title is inaccurate—put in that exact phrase, and once you take out all the Wikipedia mirror sites, you're left with nothing. And your experience with the sources is just what I expected based on this editor's other contributions. Thinking about changing your !vote? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.