Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line Integral Convolution Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Line_Integral_Convolution

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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. v/r - T P 02:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Line Integral Convolution

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure this 'product' even exists - and only refs are to its creators' publication, and their "tutorial" pages. "Line Integral Convolution (LIC) is a Scientific Visualization technique proposed (?) by Brian Cabral and Leith Leedom"

Almost certainly written by creators (see wording "we are [doing x,y,z]"), and about something which apparently doesn't yet exist! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 02:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep. Although the article is very poorly written and almost incomprehensible GS picks up some hefty cites for the term. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
keep— the article is indeed a trainwreck (although does contain enough sources to establish notability in my opinion). nevertheless this is a hugely important algorithmic technique in computer graphics, as the scholar search in the find sources template indicates. it seems that it's perhaps even more notable than the scholar search might tell, as this google search suggests. it's possible that the first person plural in the article represents copyvio rather than coi, but i can't find it if it does. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wrote this article while I was learning for one of my CS courses at ETH Zurich. I am sorry that it's such a poor article, but even this would have helped me somehow understand the topic. It's one of my first articles, so please forgive me that I used "we" a lot, I will try to not do that in the future. As you already found out, Line Integral Convolution is quite an important technique and heavily cited in Scientific Visualization. The reason why you probably think this product does not exist is, that is really isn't a product but a technique. The exact output will depend on the implementation of this technique. That said, I would be very happy If you could help in pointing out what is bad at this article, so I could understand how to do it better. Tobo (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK - we all have to start somewhere! I've dropped some helpful information onto your talk page. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over 1500 hits on Google Scholar. —Ruud 11:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are reliable sources, and it seems the nom now agrees that this is probably not appropriate for deletion. WP:SNOW anyone? --Deadly∀ssassin 13:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, sorry Withdrawing nom - yes, I'm happy to withdraw this nom. Real life overtook me - I should, of course, have done this earlier. Not sure if there's an "official" way to withdraw it, but take this as such, please! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:14, 24 September 2011 (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.