Fred Bauder wrote:
On the surface (I am no programmer, but many who read
this list are) your
arguement is persuasive, but so is the arguement of your opponents who take
the position that the level of detail you are going into is inappropriate
for an ecyclopedia.
I haven't read the articles in question (yet), but I can't believe the
depth of an article is an argument for deleting it! Geez! Where are we
going with that?! If someone thought there was too much in it, they
could have trimmed it down, but even that I would condemn, as this would
contradict our own [[Wikipedia:Replies]] where we are explicitly stating
that we are not only trying to grow in breadth but also in depth. It
even states that if at some point in the future we might have an article
on all possible encyclopedic subjects, we won't even have anything else
to improve on than the depth!
Additionally, I'm completely baffled by the apparent sentiment that
programming-related topics are not encyclopedic?! Why should a
well-known often-used subroutine that is essential to three-dimensional
graphics -- one of many hot topics in modern technology! -- not have an
article?!
Flabbergasted,
Timwi