Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PatchMatch

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 no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination. There is no consensus to delete at this time. Potential merges or redirects can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PatchMatch

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

Does not seem notable for inclusion, no RS ~~and may infringe on Adobe's patents by revealing an Algorithm.~~ Tyros1972 Talk 09:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a reference for this article PatchMatch: A Randomized Correspondence Algorithm for Structural Image Editing. This algorithm has been published for study, so no worry Erickraz Talk 21:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: thanks for the info, I will remove the improper use tag. Tyros1972 Talk 22:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or redirect. Inpainting and Iterative reconstruction both mention similar algorithms. We could put them all in one article on these algorithms and have this as a redirect. I don't know if we have such an article already or what it could be named.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Canoe1967. Andrew³²⁷ 16:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article is describing an algorithm and as such is vastly relevant for Wikipedia. I don't agree with bundling it into the Inpainting or Iterative reconstruction articles. One long article that lacks focus, No. I don't even know why it's been nominated in the first place. It could do with some additional sources, but the nature of the material could mean it will have perhaps only have single source. It's certainly valid.scope_creep (talk) 1:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2013 (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.