Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupancy Grid Mapping
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 redirect to Occupancy grid. All info appears to have been merged already. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Occupancy Grid Mapping
Reason j.t. (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
this article's contents should be in occupancy grid.
- Redirect I've re-established the content you removed for the redirect per AfD guidelines. Redirect to Occupancy grid as it covers the same priniciples. treelo talk 00:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - aside from the duplicate content issue, there's also the capitalization error. Should we rename, then redirect? It doesn't make sense. In any case, I think this is a author-requested deletion, and should fall into the "speedy" category. Jing - would you like a redirect or a deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiuguang Wang (talk • contribs) 29 May 2008
- Delete as redundant to Occupancy grid - I am surprised that the page is still here since this was an effective G7. Smile a While (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect into occupancy grid. Occupancy Grid Mapping, as written, lacks sufficient context to be in a general encyclopædia; occupancy grid is too technical. And you fix articles that are too technical by adding, not subtracting content. So add the content from Occupancy Grid Mapping into occupancy grid, and merge the histories. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- What content? The article has three sentences. And occupancy grid isn't too technical - it explains the purpose and the general algorithm very well. It already contains everything in Occupancy Grid Mapping. --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Merge. This is a tough one. It would probably have been speedily deleted as a G7 if its creator had tagged it accordingly, but even though the creator remains the only substantial contributor, another editor has objected to its deletion for what seem to me good reason. I agree with 69.140.152.55 that it provides a more easily comprehended introduction to the subject than that contained in the current article. I also note that the nominator himself does not say he wants the material gone, just relocated, which is effectively indicating a desire for a merge. The deletion rationale, coupled with the use of AfD instead of CSD, suggests simply a lack of sufficient experience to know how to handle this situation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect into the present stubby o.g. article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 5 June 2008 (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.
