Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VHDL-VITAL

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 redirect‎ to VHDL. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VHDL-VITAL

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to VHDL. MarioGom (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Small part of VHDL, so redirect to there.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to VHDL: Not enough notability to warrant it's own article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I just added 5 refs which I found using the Google Scholar and Google Books links at the top of this AfD. 30 seconds for each search. There's more out there. This is so frustrating - see WP:BEFORE. Incorrectly saying this article fails WP:GNG and taking it to AFD ties up people's time. (I subsequently spent 20 minutes on the article and this AFD). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anonrfjwhuikdzz,@Itzcuauhtli11,@MarioGom - FYI, I just added 5 refs. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of the added sources demonstrate reliable, significant, secondary coverage. Two are white papers by Vreeland and appear to be self-published. The book "VHDL for logic synthesis" mentions vital 3 times and doesn't seem to go into depth. The IEEE article from 1995 reads as primary to me. I generally do like the source from 2017 for meeting criteria to determine GNG, but with only 3 citations it's very hard for me to determine if this topic is significant or just of niche interest to academics. I still think a redirect is the best option here

All of that aside, I agree the frequent AFDs from Clenpr that are only minutes apart are annoying and make it seem as though WP:BEFORE is being ignored and it is a drain on other editors. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clenpr is also ignoring WP:ATDs in these nominations. I suggested this redirect option in my deprod. ~Kvng (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one of many VHDL-related standards, mentioned in VHDL. There's no point in a single sentence article per WP:NOPAGE, and VHDL article is a better place to expand on the topic. Without prejudice of anyone splitting VHDL-VITAL if it ever becomes necessary. MarioGom (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Its the standard nomenclature for a specific VHDL programming model and there many many of them. I don't think it is notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:19, 13 May 2025 (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.