Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital transform


 * 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. –MuZemike 20:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Digital transform

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is no topic related to the bi-gram "digital transform". See the article talk page. It's useless as a disambig, since none of things that were listed would every be sought under the name "digital transform", and it's useless as a redirect for the same reason. No good reason has been given to keep this article, but it was de-prodded. Dicklyon (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The phrase digital transform is used in many respectable sources with the meanings given by this dab page. The page seems helpful for navigation to these topics and so retention is indicated by our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you didn't read the talk page. If you had, I don't see how you could say that "The phrase digital transform is used...with the meanings given by this dab page."  It's not; if I'm wrong, link us an example or two.  As pointed out on Talk:Digital transform, none of the three linked articles mention anything like "digital transform," so there's no useful navigation function here.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to digital signal processing or delete. Absolutely generic term for data processing after digitizing. Nageh (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Discretization means non-contiguous sampling in one dimension (time), while digitalization means non-contiguous sampling in both time and value (amplitude). The current page lists one entry pointing to discrete transform, which is a redirect to digital signal processing. If even discrete transform redirects to digital signal processing then digital transform should even more so. This solution becomes obvious when looking at the second disamb entry, which exactly points to digital signal processing. On the other hand, just as there is analog-to-digital conversion there is digital-to-analog conversion – so where is the article on analog transform? Nageh (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * analog transform is not about DAC, just as digital transform is not about ADC. Both article missing means simply that experts in DSP have little interest in educating vie wikipedia. In terms of "Signal Processing for Dummies", digital transform is an implementation of a transformation of a signal in terms of its digital/discretized representation, while "analog transform" is kind of retronym for transformations of a signal in its analog form, e.g., using integrals and stuff.  Lorem Ip (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was trying to make an analogy, stupid! And you are just repeating what I said that digital transform is any processing of digitized signals. Nageh (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: I think I have sufficient knowledge on digital signal processing that I can claim that the term is generic. BTW, here is a List of transforms, with many possible transforms in digital/discrete domain, and you have redirected YOURSELF discrete transform to digital signal processing. Nageh (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: per CW. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per CW? You mean you didn't look at the talk page, either?  Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment – can I ask anyone who wants to say "keep" to please comment with respect to what's already on the article talk page? We had a few keeps above from people who did no good, since they ignored the followup questions and didn't say why they think there's anything useful here.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and leave the experts in the subject decide whether there is only one meaning or two. I am vastly surprized the discussion in the article talk page. It takes only two minutes to find refs in books which refer to the two listed meanings of the term: this book directly refers to the DFT (discrete Fourier Transform) as "the digital transform", while this google search and this clearly show that digital transforms are instruments in digital signal processing. It is not my fault that DSP experts do not rush to wikipedia to explain their terminology. Lorem Ip (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As already pointed out and enumerated, each such use is purely generic, not suggestive of a topic. If you had several books using the term in the same way, suggestive of a topic, you'd have something.  These are nothing.  It's like trying to make a topic or disambig out of something like "digital operation" or "digital weather" or something like that.  In terms of uses with "DFT", most are just random generic juxtapositions that happen to be on the same page: .  Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In my honest opinion this is exactly the purpose of a disambiguation page: to point to specific meanings of a term. Also, you may be intended a joke or a grotesque nonsence, but I would love to see the disambig page which would explain different usages of the term digital operation. On the other hand, unlike digital transform or digital operation, I fail to see the collocation digital weather in nominal (linguistics) position. By the way, feel free to nominate the page "nominal" for deletion: your logic quite applicable: "generic term", "not suggestive of a topic". I am baffled that there is an opinion that generic terms are disallowed. (By the way, can someone delete a misleading redirect, "generic term"? This is a good example of what may happen with generic terms when they are not properly disambiguated into particular ones.) Lorem Ip (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Referring to a discrete (Fourier) transform as a "digital transform" is just sloppiness. Jeez, can we prevent non-experts from yelling "keep"? Nageh (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, you are a much smarter expert than the person who wrote the scientific book in question. ("Jeez, can we prevent know-it-alls from yelling whatever they are yelling when they know they know better than you") Lorem Ip (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, "digital transform" is commonly used to include "discrete transforms" such as "Discrete Fourier Transform", "Discrete Cosinus Transform", "Discrete Wavelet Transform", etc.
 * In practice, discrete transforms are digital transforms because digital computers can only work on discretized/quantized information. Strictly speaking, however, Discrete Fourier transforms only require the time domain to be discretized. The coefficients in the transform (i.e., the sampled values) can be continuous (i.e., analog)! From this perspective, a Discrete Fourier transform is not a digital transform!
 * The point on the current disamb page is that discrete transform is a redirect to digital signal processing, and the second entry on the disamb page directly points to digital signal processing. So the page can be summarized as "Digital transform refers to transforms in digital signal processing." I don't think this is very useful as a disamb page. Nageh (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the solution should be:
 * Discrete transform -> List of transforms
 * Digital transform -> Digital signal processing, with a mention there that discrete transforms are also referred to as digital transforms
 * I really would hope for other users to comment. Nageh (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Lorem Ip (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But discrete transforms are almost never called digital transforms. So why should we call them that in wikipedia?  See  and  and  for some relevant relative frequencies. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not precise terminology but apparently people use it like that. See or . So without a specific definition it certainly does not warrant a separate article or disamb page but it is certainly appropriate to create this as a redirect to digital signal processing. Nageh (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So far no new editors have expressed an opinion, and the none of the keeps has provided evidence of a topic. The article's creator, Lorem Ip, tried, but is clearly just relying on one peculiar mention is one book, which means nothing. And he's still flipping around on what the topic is, since his original version had a rather different idea that got shot down, and since I reverted his subsequent redirect to digital signal processing as a poor substitute for deletion. Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as disamb. Possible search term and a disamb page is better than nothing. -Atmoz (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion above. The current disamb page points to digital signal processing twice! It would be better if we had a direct redirect to that article rather than a pointless disamb. Thank you. Nageh (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The disamb also links to Discrete Fourier transform. I did read the discussion. Your baggering is annoying. Quit it. -Atmoz (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So it should also point to discrete cosine transform, discrete wavelet transform, fast Fourier transform, etc. This is not baggering but trying to educate people like you with no background in telecommunications or digital signal processing. Nageh (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those pages seem good to link from the disamb page. And I have a background in signal processing. Any other ad homs you want to get off your chest? -Atmoz (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do: you're being a moron. Why not give evidence of such usage, instead of just claiming that it seems OK to you?  I've looked, and don't find it.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take back your words. Lorem Ip (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2011 (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.