Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capacitive gestures

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. Adding a redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 06:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capacitive gestures

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete because I don't like it..... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete messy how-to, no notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have several related articles and the closest of them seems to be Multi-touch gestures which has some nice graphics. There's a clearly a need for a good article on this topic and so we should keep these drafts for further development per our editing policy. BTW, have you ever tried to edit Wikipedia using a touchscreen interface rather than a mouse? It's not easy... Warden (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warden frequently recycles the editing policy argument, it carries no weight in advancing or establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not just about notability. The actual argument of the nomination is "I don't like it" which seems to be neither policy nor guideline. Warden (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment in the nomination was tongue in cheek. There may or may not be a policy based argument for deletion but Afds are all about getting a consensus on inclusion. WP policy and guidelines don't always help. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I work in this field and this is so poorly written, it would be a much better solution to the Colonel's points to expand/edit Multi-Touch and possibly redirect the title of this article. Although I have never heard anyone use that terminology. All touch screens are capacitive, whether they are multi touch or not. I can attest that editing Wikipedia on an iPad is AWFUL.Newmanoconnor (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you vote Redirect, then, or Delete? Can't have both. Anarchangel (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are other types of touch screen technology besides capacitive such as resistive. The method of sensing has some effect upon the types of gesture which can be made. My impression is that we have numerous articles and so it would be good to review them all and then try to organise them into a coherent structure. Warden (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Multi-touch gestures You know, of course, when one attempts to create a new article that has previously been deleted, there is a dirty nasty big old pink sign, of the color of tube socks that were left in with red clothes, that gives a very strong hint that perhaps no one should create this article ever again. "If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below." Chances are, a person remaking such an article has absolutely no clue what the previous article was like, and no way of finding out without contacting the deleting administrator in any case. Admins that are convinced of the deficiencies of articles enough to delete them usually prefer to avoid talking to people about restoring; I have never gotten a reply on such a subject, although I admit I gave up after two or three times. I think that is the wrong message to send some well-meaning techie who might actually know how to write this article, on a subject that is obviously worthy of inclusion. Anarchangel (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience warnings given to editors in various locations serve no purpose. They are universally ignored. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect; the article as written is nearly useless. Chidon01 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2012 (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.