Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Design principles and elements
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cydebot (talk | contribs) at 15:13, 13 June 2006 (Robot - Removing inclusions of deleted signature image.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 15:13, 13 June 2006 by Cydebot (talk | contribs) (Robot - Removing inclusions of deleted signature image.)
- 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 of the debate was no consensus to delete, defaults to a keeper. Ifnord 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either this is original research or an instruction manual, though it has a long history. If it is neither, vote KEEP. If it is, what do we do with it?-- Perfecto 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but needs a wikify. Has useful characteristics of design that should be expanded. Arbustoo 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. I've added {{wikify}} to the article. Royal Blue 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Deleteper nom. Keep Articlecould behas been re-written - I too agree it has potential.,,,,,Ariele 03:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Ariele 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)- Delete truisms without any real foundation, a mishmash of the first week of a graphic design I course. Definitely not the case that "every design discipline" (from urban planning to software engineering to instructional design?) shares elements at this level. The "every design discipline" stuff is handled better at design, the specifics at graphic design or interior design. —rodii 22:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Although this is the kind of crap they teach in basic design classes, I think random liberal arts curriculum like this is too indiscriminate to write articles about. -- Krash (Talk) 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- I wikified the article a bit, I think it has potential. DVD+ R/W 23:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I appreciate the work you've done, but I really think this article is hopeless. It's basically a very short interior design article, or perhaps graphic design, but as I alluded to above, design writ large has many, many disciplines, and many of them don't make any use of the "principles and elements" in the article. Software architecture doesn't; instructional design doesn't (much); computer architecture doesn't; antenna design doesn't... and so on. So this article isn't really about "design," and the things it describes certainly aren't "basic design tactics in every design discipline." What they are about is graphic design, and if you look there you see "elements of design" and "principles of design," in context and more complete. So, yeah, the article does have potential--you can see the potential fulfilled already on an preexisting page. This article is just a brief rehash of every graphic design textbook. So I think at best a redirect to graphic design is in order--this is a case of someone with a little bit of content to share creating an article without bothering to see if it already exists on Wikipedia. —rodii 03:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.