Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Focal plane array testing Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Focal_plane_array_testing

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. The new article by User:Noah Salzman seems to be acceptable; I'll merge the history into the article in just a moment Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Focal plane array testing

Not an article, not notable. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and boldly simplify down to a couple paragraphs (I volunteer). If you have any interest in high tech weaponry — and, by Jove, you should — then you have an interest in their guidance and image sensing systems. Yes, this subject is highly technical, and perhaps only interesting to Defense contractors, but a google books/journals search pops up all sorts of references. The only other option I see is merging into Focal plane array. —Noah 06:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an article more an apparent brain-dump. --AlisonW (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It wasn't a brain dump, the author simply copy/pasted from some dense gov't publication. Per my "volunteer" comment above I have created a simplified stub version of this article here: User:Noah_Salzman/Focal_plane_array_testing. It is just a start, but hopefully it will provide those seeking deletion an alternative outcome. —Noah 18:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replace. I've asked Noah Salzman to improve on their definition in the lead, and there's probably other little fixes possible, but using this article instead of what's there now should deal with the current copy/paste issue. - Mgm|^(talk) 01:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if the current lead works — I just changed it. I'm looking for "good enough" at this particular juncture. :-) —Noah 01:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see the change Fg2 (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my sub-page? I was a bit obtuse as to which... I meant mine. —Noah 03:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks Fg2 (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2009 (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.