Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of motion and time sequence analysis related concepts


 * 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. causa sui (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

List of motion and time sequence analysis related concepts

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. This is an index page copied from the CVOnline web site then partly linked. Except many of the items aren't linked. Many that are linked aren't to an article that matches the link text but are piped to another, often more than one link to the same one (I count five to video tracking, four to optical flow, etc.). Even if all the non-links, surprising targets and duplicates were tidied up it's not clear what it's for: a page that links to both photographic mosaic and linear motion is not a useful navigation aid for any topic on Wikipedia. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment _ I have no opinion substantively, but I deprodded it because I though that its deletion would need to be discussed in a wider forum. It could be useful as a place to search for related articles.  What do you folks think? Bearian (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's copied from this, which is one of the top level 'indexes' for CVonline. I have no particular interest in computer vision but first looked at it when dealing with link spam by this article's creator, as described on that editor's talk page. It is organised very differently to Wikipedia, with less than twenty indexes for the whole content (though each link is to a database query rather than to an article). My own view is it's a poor way to organise content on their site but is an even poorer fit here, as CVonline's 17 or so indexes are far too broad to be useful here, never mind the duplication of links, excessive piping and many non-links.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't seem to meet GNG and is obviously an example of plagiarism. Chris (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete due to WP:COPYVIO. --Kvng (talk) 14:26, 18 October 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.