Talk:VL class

Reverted merge
@Bagufleat: I noticed you reverted my merge of Avteq into this article. Can you please explain why? My reasoning for merging is that Avteq said the exact same information as here (and it is a really small stub), and it fails WP:NOTABILITY to warrant a separate article. Specifically the guideline that article topics require significant coverage and not merely a trivial mention at WP:SIGCOV. Per WP:Merging, the policy also allows uncontroversial merges to be boldly done. I thought it was pretty uncontroversial because of that. Fork99 (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have a look, I did not just revert the original article that had only one unreliable cite. It is a quite different article with five reliable cites. By comparison the VL class that it was redirected to is largely uncited with one WP:FANSITE cite (Vicsig) and one (CFCLA) that only confirms their existence and nothing else. If you still think it should be merged, please go through the formal merge request process. Bagufleat (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, thanks for expanding it then @Bagufleat, have a good rest of your day :) Fork99 (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)