Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESVG

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 to Scalable Vector Graphics. Sandstein 08:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ESVG

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a result of my failed RfA, I was searching with google and at many reviewing pages (zdnet, etc), but I couldn't find any independent source. This software seems simply not notable. mabdul 10:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scalable Vector Graphics. I only found a couple of passing mentions in Google Books;[1][2] not enough to pass WP:GNG, but probably enough to warrant mention in a more general article. However, if anyone finds more substantial coverage I will be happy to change my !vote. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: found no coverage that would allow voting otherwise. I oppose merging this to Scalable Vector Graphics as the topics are distinct enough (library vs. file format); effectively I see no good target to merge this at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be worth a mention in the "Software and support in applications" or "Mobile support" sections of that article. There are already SVG libraries mentioned there, so it needn't be out of place. If there was, say, an editorial decision to only include implementations that have their own Wikipedia article, though, I could understand that. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Scalable Vector Graphics; I don't understand why Czarkoff objects to this, as the two are closely related. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Third the merge notion; not notable, but even passing mention should still be enough for a line on the main SVG pile, at least so long as that doesn't get out of hand or something, I dunno. — Isarra ༆ 19:43, 12 April 2012 (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.