Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structured hardware design


 * 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   delete.  Sandstein  18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Structured hardware design

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Primarily duplicate info as Structured LSI design Structured VLSI design Tiggerjay (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment How can it be a duplicate of a red linked page? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment link corrected above - however the link is now merged into another article and a redirect is setup. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  jonny - m  t  03:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As this is a duplication of content that has been merged and redirected to a more appropriate target, should not this article also be merged and redirected to that target? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.143.140 (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sure what is going on with the redirects, or the claims that this is supposed to be a duplicate of some other article.  But the article itself is a difficult to follow and context-free description of some kind of management philosophy for electronic design. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a management philosophy, it is an engineering methodology. WillOakland (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By moving things around while the deletion was still pending TiggerJay has made this much more complicated. I don't believe that there should be two articles when Dr. Hartenstein acknowledges that they're the same thing, nor do I think the topic should be covered in the VLSI article if it in fact pre-dates VLSI. WillOakland (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2008 (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.