Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manufacturing technic of a lenticular product


 * 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 Merge to Lenticular lens. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturing technic of a lenticular product

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide for animators, photographers, or lens users; and secondly, we have a encyclopedic version of this information already in lenticular lens so this article will never be more than a badly-titled duplicate. Its long and confusing title means this is better off being deleted than redirected. Pegasus &laquo;C&brvbar;T&raquo; 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to Lenticular lens. This article is *not* a how-to guide, but includes details regarding the lenticular lens that is not included in the parent article. There is no reason for this article to exist independently, but there is no reason for additional useful information present here and absent from Lenticular lens to be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. Some of this information is useful and not included in Lenticular lens. However, there is definitely an excess of detail which must be trimmed. Hal peridol (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge: The missing info into the other article. No need for 2 separate articles here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - as above. nom doesn't do the article justice, there is a lot of encyclopedic information in it. --.Tom. (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Partially merge this into Lenticular lens per above, preserving any text not merged on a subpage of the talk page. I understand why the nom. thought this had too much "how to" type information in it, and portions of it are unwikified and too technical for general readers.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2007 (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.