Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of computer engineering

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 keep. I think the whole subject needs a meta discussion at the VP or listing at CENT but AFD is a poor location to decided on utility of the outline series of articles Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of computer engineering

Completely unnecessary orphaned subarticle/list treated as if it's a parent article. Nothing here that can't be handled by the proper parent article at Computer engineering. Also, headers like "Essence of computer engineering" strike me as pretty POV.WesleyDodds (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've only recently become aware of the outline project, the idea being that an outline page is supposed to be a quick page of basic facts and quick links to more things, kind of like the "micropaedia" that the Britannica has (had?) starting in the 70s. Such pages have potential to be very good navigation aids, such as Outline of Japan. I can't vote a !keep on this one, because it has no context and is more like a list of computer engineering topics. Not a !delete either, because the people on these projects are genuinely interested in making outlines worthwhile. If someone, who can explain computer engineering in terms simple enough for people like me, wants to write an outline, I'd change my mind. Mandsford (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, all that's in this article can be handled by the main article itself and any nav templates/infoboxes therein. It's basically redundant. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do we have a list of computer engineering topics? If so, merge. If not, move and keep. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the only such list. List of basic computer engineering topics redirects here. The question of what to name them looks like something that the outline of knowledge project has been tackling. +sj + 14:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- This page is moved from List of basic computer engineering topics to the current name, see history for the name changes. Outline is the current naming convention for lists like this. --Stefan ^talk 03:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and give it time to develop under the new project. DGG (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it's attempting to cover the same scope as the proper article (that is, give a comprehensive overview of a subject), but with a list of links in lieu of substantive content. You don't need a separate article for that. Hell, you could accomplsih the same thing with a nav template, and it'd take much less space. More worrisome is the lack of clarity over what is supposed to be the main article, as Outline of computer engineering and Computer engineering both link to one another with the "main article" template. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Note that I created the page in 2007. I have no intention to work on it currently. ~MDD 46 96 01:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think others will, since now there's an active WikiProject. DGG (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bad page is not a delete argument, give it time to be enhanced. Agree that the difference between this and Computer engineering is not that clear today, it does not give good context and is more like a list, but that does not mean that it should be deleted. --Stefan ^talk 03:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unnecessary content fork. How honestly do you see this page being enhanced in the future? The best way to enhance it, if any, would be to merge it into Computer engineering and enhance that article. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree, but if that is true why did you ask for DELETION and not merge??? Next time use the {{merge}} and {{merge-to}} templates. --Stefan ^talk 10:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's nothing really to merge. It's a redundant and confusing content fork-slash-list directory. The computer programming isn't all that big to begin with, so there's no reason you need a separate main/daughter/unclear hierarchy article. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit shows how I see this page grow and why I think that it is NOT a small subject and it also (at least to me) proves how MUCH info there are in wikipedia today, which I can not find without lots of time of clicking. Good outlines makes this info easy to find. When you write an outline you need to really search wikipedia and find all these nice pages all over the place, when I started my edit I expected to add 5 - 10 links, I did add 28 wikilinks (the product specific ones might not fit but that is still 21). These additional links are not part of the Computer engineering page and most can only be added there in the see also section, by filling out the other sections in a simmilar way it becomes obvious that this is NOT a FORK but a navigational tool. Again just because both Computer engineering and Outline of computer engineering is not very good pages today and they have lots of overlap today is NOT a reason to delete. --Stefan ^talk 02:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me: why not just make a navigational template, which can perform the exact same function without having to be a separate page from Computer engineering? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the discussion above, this doesn't appear to have been created as part of the outline project, nor is there any sign that it would be adapted to that. The premise (a list of Wikipedia articles) doesn't make a very good subject for its own page in any event. Mandsford (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Wesley, see the Outline of Knowledge for hundreds of other similar pages. If you want to push for them all to be deleted on the grounds of redundancy and confusion, you may want to discuss it with the group working there. +sj + 14:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that he wanted to push for all of them to be deleted? Simply because the words "Outline of" are included in a title does not mean that it's off limits for nomination. If the goal of the outline project is to provide and maintain useful additions to Wikipedia, then be glad that Wesley has pointed out the extent to which this one falls short. Keep nominating 'em, Mr. Dodds. Mandsford (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are other outlines doesn't mean you need there for every subject. That's not a good rationale for determining whether or not an article needs to exist. This subject doesn't require a separate outline, and thus the page has no reason to exist. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep something in an outline. I just discovered the outlines and wish there were other outlines. Please also leave a summary or list of complaints on the talk page. I know this and Computer engineering both look painfully sparse right now, as there is not enough to explain the need to deviate from a typical x86 design. Some thoughtful additions about embedded systems, mixed signal systems, etc. could broaden the reader's imagination to invent new specialized designs, or at least understand the need. I'm not an expert on this subject, but I can imagine dropping by and making some additions in the next few months as well as the whole outline project, when I feel a little more comfortable with the intended outline style. Mostly internal links and very little commentary? --Dgroseth (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RUBBISH. The way the OOK WikiProject is going, this outline will be improved eventually. Topic merits an outline. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How so? There's nothing to suggest that this page will provide anything the main article cannot. It's a pretty small topic, and both pages are small. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2009 (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.