Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riemersma dithering

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 Merge & redirect to dithering. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Riemersma dithering

Riemersma dithering (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I have found no serious reference to Riemersma dithering in the litterature. The article was making claims about Riemersma performing better than both ordered dither and classic error diffusion, which is trivially shown to be false (see the Riemersma results compared to more classical methods). The article still makes this claim about performing well on delta-encoded animations, which I only read about in the author’s original article, and which I do not believe to be true either (proving it would be original research, but the burden of proof should not rest on me). I'm close to calling this method a hoax. Sam Hocevar (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge – To ditheringwill fit well into the article. Shoessss |  Chat  13:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Shoessss. STORMTRACKER 94 15:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless the algorithm appears somewhere else than in DDJ (original article is [1]) - e.g. in some actually used data format. Deleting it won't make much of harm to WP - the text more-less says "something exists". I see nothing to merge - my bad perhaps. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Shoesss. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 23:43, 2 January 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.