Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articulated Body Pose Estimation (Computer Vision) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Articulated_Body_Pose_Estimation_(Computer_Vision)

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. John254 01:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articulated Body Pose Estimation (Computer Vision) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article about a technology in recording human movement; however, I can't find any reliable sources that talk about this technology. A Google search finds scholarly papers that only make one mention of the technology, not enough coverage to meet WP:N. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article represents a general description of the technologies related to extracting articulated body pose, human body pose included. A google search of terms "articulated body pose estimation" reveals 238,000 ^[1] and google scholar returns 6180 ^[2]. This appears to satisfy the coverage requirement. Shinko Cheng 23:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Google scholar finds many articles on this subject, well more than enough sources to write a good article. Very few of the first few hits look trivial. Maybe the nominator searched only for the exact phrase in the article's title? That would have been a mistake, I think. —David Eppstein 23:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you feel strongly about it, it would be nice if you'd add some good references. MarkBul 00:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The trouble is that there are so many relevant looking references that one couldn't possibly cite them all, and it would take a lot of effort and subject-specific knowledge to work them down to a good representative subset. But an overabundance of sources is not exactly a good reason to delete... —David Eppstein 00:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the nominator searched only for the exact phrase in the article's title? Sadly, this is exactly what I did. Considering your Google Scholar results, I'll just withdraw the nomination and remember to search a little more throughly before putting an article to AfD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 20:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep AfD should not be used to prod for references. Numerous Ghits completely contradicts the nom--strongly suggest withdrawal. Dhaluza 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I just attended a talk (loosely) on this topic, and while I don't have the expertise to do much with this article, notability seems pretty clear. Very central issue in computer vision. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.