Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications: note issue with my proposal. |
|||
Line 94:
*'''full merge'''. I've gone back-and-forth on this more than I have on nearly anything in a while. I don't think this meets the sourcing requirements of WP:N. The coverage is much closer to "in passing" than to "significant" IMO. That said, we do have a notion that some topics are more intrinsically notable than others (see WP:CORP for example) and our bar for inclusion should vary a bit because of that. To me, this is the type of thing we should be covering if the sources come close. And I'd push for this to be its own article ''if I felt that was the best way to present the information''. But I think a more-or-less full merge (maybe not the editors-in-chief list) of the article into [[List of IEEE publications]] is just as good as this article is very stubby and, given the dearth sources, really can't be more than that. Honestly I'm fine with a keep also, and I had an IAR keep argument written out but then changed my mind as I think we should stay inside of our guidelines and not use IAR unless doing so is clearly more helpful to the reader. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 19:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
**And yes, I know that involves reformatting, and probably splitting, that target. If folks feel that's not viable, I'm back to ''weak keep'' by IAR. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 19:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
**:You have an idiosyncratic definition of "very stubby". To me, this article has already moved beyond start class to C class. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 20:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
| |||