Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer-Aided Design Technical Committee


 * 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 IEEE Circuits and Systems Society with the option of merging any content that seems viable. There's consensus here that a standalone article isn't appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Computer-Aided Design Technical Committee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Prodded recently by User:Kj_cheetham and deprodded by User:David Eppstein with "This is a major subunit of IEEE". Unfortunately, it still doesn't seem notable. I expect this AfD may end up with a merge/redirect suggestion per the recent Articles for deletion/Technical Committee on VLSI, and frankly, I don't see what is there to merge, but let's discuss, I guess. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete I recognise it's important within the IEEE, but I'm still not convinced of it's notability to the wider world. There is a single independant source now at least, hence only a weak vote from me now, and I might be convinced to change my mind. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I just can't find sources that reflect its importance beyond the one I added when I deprodded it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,    Kadzi    (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge the first sentence from the lead into IEEE_Circuits_and_Systems_Society. The independent source was a good find by David, but I was unable to find further significant RS that would satisfy WP:GNG. The source does establish some verifiable material, however, and I think a mention in the CAS article is reasonable and of due weight. Pragmatically, adding the RS found will also benefit the CAS article as well. -- 20:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.