Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statistical Analysis and Design of Integrated Circuits
- 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 of the debate was COPYVIO. Until permission is dealt with, this AfD is moot. Just because a publication is distributed for free they do not surrender their copyright to their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splash (talk • contribs)
This article reads like an abstract to what could be an interesting paper in an IEEE publication. It is more or less copied from a newsletter that reports recent research in the digital design field. [1] As such it contains a very well written intro, but zero development or real encyclopedic content. Furthermore, the topic is so specific and specialized to digital design EE, I can't see it ever being improved into a readily-accessible encyclopedia article. Short summary: unencyclopedic. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-03-26 02:49Z
- Weak delete I understand the nom's concerns, but I am not sure that they are insurmountable. kotepho 03:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps not insurmountable, but if the article were fleshed out into something complete, I suspect you'd need either a EE degree or digital design experience to even grasp the relevance of the topic. In other words, the topic itself is interesting and relevant for me as a EE, but highly inaccessible to the average reader. (IMHO) -- uberpenguin
@ 2006-03-26 03:32Z03:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps not insurmountable, but if the article were fleshed out into something complete, I suspect you'd need either a EE degree or digital design experience to even grasp the relevance of the topic. In other words, the topic itself is interesting and relevant for me as a EE, but highly inaccessible to the average reader. (IMHO) -- uberpenguin
- Strong Delete I vehemently disagree with nom's assertion that some things are too confusing or arcane to add articles on, but feel we should delete this particular article anyways. Wikipedia is not the place for statistical analysis; statistical analysis is subjective, not objective. Dalamori 03:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to above On further examination: While the article does seem to engage in summary reporting of the results of statistical analysis, the article also seems to cover the topic of methods of statistical analysis of integrated circuits, which is relevant, and does not seem to merit deletion. Although, I would support moving that content to an article that was better prepared to handle that content. Dalamori 03:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite and move the title and text of the article is inconsistant with wikipedia standard. Eivindt@c 04:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite to what? Move to where? Who is going to rewrite it? Isn't this vote option pointless unless you're willing to do it yourself? -- uberpenguin
@ 2006-03-26 04:42Z
- Rewrite to what? Move to where? Who is going to rewrite it? Isn't this vote option pointless unless you're willing to do it yourself? -- uberpenguin
- Keep Needs lots of work though. Newyorktimescrossword 20:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Jay(Reply) 23:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think that this is an important topic, and we should leave it up so that people can add to it and modify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenechow (talk • contribs)
- As a note, this is Karenechow's third contribution to Wikipedia. -- uberpenguin
@ 2006-03-28 02:00Z
- As a note, this is Karenechow's third contribution to Wikipedia. -- uberpenguin
- Delete per nom; completey inaccessible; little context. Sandstein 09:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, I think the subject of the article is important enough to deserve an article. But it needs considerable work, and a better context, (I support the "expert" template). And it needs to be moved to a more relevant title. --Soumyasch 09:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]