Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSS Reference Manual

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 05:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSS Reference Manual

[edit]
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]
    • Re: banned links: since mid-2006, the curators of the HTML article, myself included, have been collaborating to keep the external links in that article of exceptional quality. We've been favoring current, accurate, relatively ad-free content and requiring that any additions go through a process of nomination and justification. Very few tutorial sites get approved. Please look through the discussion archives, especially Talk:HTML/Archive 2, where you'll see W3Schools in particular wasn't looked upon with favor. I haven't been monitoring the CSS article, but based on the external links there, and the presence of the Open Directory Project link, it looks like they've undergone a similar clampdown on spam & tutorial linking, perhaps even moreso than on the HTML article. —mjb (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: 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.: In other words, the article is original research and a coatrack/directory and a (meta-)how-to. Its external links are exclusively to primary sources (manuals themselves) rather than to academic or newsworthy articles about such manuals. As such, the links and even the article itself are not about the topic of the article; rather, the article is about them. But it's not even that, because the way it's currently written, the 'history' is about CSS in general, not manuals. The article cites not one reliable, credible, third-party, disinterested source about CSS reference manuals. Surely if the topic of these reference manuals is notable, it would've been written about somewhere else. I hate to be one of those "show me where this was written about in the New York Times" people, but think about it: you've basically admitted that this article's point is to be a link farm. It's for an audience of CSS scholars, whereas it should be for scholars of markup manuals, past & present, good & bad. —mjb (talk) 04:42, 20 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]
  • Delete, we're close to "howto" here. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not the case, an exhaustive list of external references is aimed at; this has nothing to do with howto's, and I assume you are mistaking it for tutorials. If you people would just read properly, and let an article be created calmly, instead of 'bashing' people that are without any personal benefit working very hard and have the guts and decency to create high quality content for the world to use.Clfavreaux 15:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – clear coatrack for the placement of external links. Note that it's not the links themselves that are not allowed (otherwise they would already be blacklisted), but how they're being used. MuZemike 16:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've studied all guidelines, and the article in its current state follows all linking policies given at Wikipedia:Linking. Small piece of advice to all 'bashing' commenters out here: by not following the don't bite newcomers policy, you are in fact breaking Wikipedia rules yourself. Understand that newcomers are both necessary for and valuable to the community. By empowering newcomers, we can improve the diversity of knowledge, perspectives, and ideals on Wikipedia, thereby preserving its neutrality and integrity as a resource and ultimately increasing its value. In fact, it has been found that newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of lasting content to Wikipedia (i.e., substantive edits): while insiders and administrators are responsible for a large bulk of total edits, these often involve tweaking, reverting, and rearranging content. If a newcomer seems to have made a small mistake, try to correct it yourself: do not slam the newcomer. Clfavreaux 17:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, please remember that this is not a majority vote, there is no need to say keep in bold more than once; that is also not in good practice to do so in these discussions as it may construe as votestacking. Second, I am not slamming anyone, so please assume good faith in that some users are just trying to help out newer users; I am sorry that you do not appreciate that, but that is what I am trying to do. Third, WP:BITE is not a policy but a behavioral guideline (albeit an important one). MuZemike 19:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move After giving it a night's sleep, and after having carefully read all comments another time, I still disagree on some arguments, but I guess it's not so important to have these content bits on one specific page. I do find it of utmost importance however, that the contents of this page are preserved on Wikipedia, and therefore I will move its contents to Cascading Style Sheets. Johnnybravo2009 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CSS_Reference_Manual&oldid=1071007596"