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