Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSS Reference Manual

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rhinoracer (talk | contribs) at 13:50, 19 March 2009 (→CSS Reference Manual). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

CSS Reference Manual

CSS Reference Manual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable, redundant (to reference work & manual, etc.), original research (unreferenced), link list. Reisio (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable, and appears to exist as an excuse to post external links to sites that have been banned from the Cascading Style Sheets and HTML articles, among others. —mjb (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, a CSS reference manual is a reference manual for CSS - but we knew that already. What this article is, is a WP:COATRACK for external links. There's no actual content here which isn't already present at CSS, where it belongs. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. a) Which sites we're banned from the Cascading Style Sheets and HTML articles? Provide proof for that please, all links seem valid. b) The Cascading Style Sheets article lacks an in-depth discussion of common / contemporary CSS usage among web developers, being the focal topic of this article. c) The 'History' part is in its current form, I agree, somewhat redundant compared to the Cascading Style Sheets article, but it can serve as an introduction to the cross-browser inconsistencies providing the need for a CSS reference overview to solve web site appearance problems. d) The article is still young and needs work. I'll work on it myself since I find it potentially useful.Clfavreaux 09:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no "in-depth discussion of common / contemporary CSS usage" in this article - it's hardly long enough to discuss anything in depth, and the closest it comes to broaching the subject is by tangentially mentioning that web developers use CSS to build web pages. That much and more is already stated pretty clearly on the main CSS page, and even if it weren't, the correct solution would not be to add a section it to an article on a different topic. Zetawoof(ζ)
    • "Which sites we're banned from the Cascading Style Sheets and HTML articles?"
      Do you see any of those links in the Cascading Style Sheets and HTML articles? ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was editing my comments while receiving a network conflict. Please let me elaborate. Clfavreaux 10:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multiple CSS incompatibilities exist among different browsers, caused by deviations on CSS standards by browser makers. These cross-browser incompatibilities lead to severe problems among web developers that are challenged with the task of consistent appearance of their web sites. Hence the need for a practical overview of common CSS usage exists, and that is exactly what the initial author of this article was trying to provide. Hence, this article is indeed notable. Further, the absence of the given links in the Cascading Style Sheets article forms the sole basis for these links. A link being absent is NOT the same as a link being banned, that is trivial. Again, let me enhance the contents of this article.Clfavreaux 10:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide knowledge to its users. The article is meant to let users know about the existence of CSS Reference Manuals that guide web developers towards proper / safe / compatible CSS usage, thus solving the browser inconsistencies I just mentioned. The initial author of this article clearly did not intend to put such a reference manual itself on wikipedia; he or she is merely trying to provide an overview of well-known existing manuals. Or are you claiming that the given links / reference manuals are invalid? Clfavreaux 11:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The SitePoint page is the only bit that attempts to address the problem you speak of, and it's merely linked to, which doesn't require a new article. Also, as has already been pointed out, we already cover this elsewhere. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you now questioning my credibility as well? This happens to be a part of my personal body of knowledge and I can proove that if you would just let me work on this article itself instead of commenting on you and defending myself over and over again. How can one ever start contributing to Wikipedia without a trackrecord on Wikipedia itself? Clfavreaux 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's just hard to believe a brand new user happened upon a brand new page in the few hours it existed and already felt informed enough to participate in an AfD discussion. I do believe you when you say it's personal. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a matter of fact, I was looking for CSS Reference Manuals myself for quite some time and I've noticed that a decent overview of quick reference manuals was missing. When I found out about this article, and at the same time noticed that it was AfD'd by you, Reisio, I felt encouraged to defend the initial author as well as this article's (potential) notability. Since you have stopped (which I can understand) discussing my valid arguments and have taken it to a personal level, are you now perhaps also suggesting that Wikipedia itself is not about decentral contribution by authors around the globe? Are you perhaps stating that contributing to Wikipedia is limited to those with an "undisputed trackrecord" as yourself "Reisio" (nice authoratative nickname btw...)? I haven't seen your PhD credentials either. Let's take it back to the content discussion again, instead of the mud throwing level that you started just now. Or let's work on the article itself together with the initial author of it (?), I suggest. Or is that of no relevance since you will delete good and hard work anyway Reisio? Please let me know.Clfavreaux 11:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh, you should have just asked me that Reisio! I entered "CSS Reference" in the little search box at the left side of the Wikipedia screen. Or are you now disputing the notability of that search box as well? Now could you PLEASE be so kind to let me work on this article, or tell me that that is of no use because you will delete the article anyway Reisio? If so, please let me know NOW so I can report that to the proper authorities later. Clfavreaux 12:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a matter of fact: YES! And how did you find out about it? Is there any difference? Do you perhaps have a conflict of interests yourself Reisio? It's clear that you have failed to answer my questions, and I am beginning to find that suspicious myself, while on the other hand I have answered all of yours very quickly and decently. So now please, and this is the last time I'm ASKING you: will you delete this article once it has been enhanced to generally accepted Wikipidia standards, or will you not? Clfavreaux 12:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's your problem then. Fact: You have neglected to answer several of my questions, including the one whether you will or will not delete the article before given the chance to enhance, or even at the point it has already achieved Wikipedia standards. Fact: you have long stopped discussing the article on qualitative aspects, and instead you have taken it to a mere personal level in which you've questioned my credibility without me even having initiated the article. I will now work on the article, and if you delete it or have it deleted by other people for mal reasons, I will report you on a personal level. Have a nice day.Clfavreaux 13:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dear people, I am the person that initially started with this article, and I am shocked about all the fuss about it. I merely went to bed last night, therefore did not have time then to enhance the article, and that is exactly what I am going to do now. I want to thank Clfavreaux for defending me and my article, and want to make clear that I have no association whatsoever to him. Johnnybravo2009 12:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnnybravo, I wasn't defending you, I was purely defending the contents of the article and its intention. For now, please help along to make the article 'notable' according to the Wikipedia standards. Clfavreaux 13:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CSS_Reference_Manual&oldid=278327345"