Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Display examples (2nd nomination)

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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Display examples

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

This is an image gallery, and despite what those indicating keep in the last AFD stated, continues simply as an image gallery which is contrary to WP:NOT. Whpq (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic that the article intends to cover is definitely useful, but is very poorly presented. Indeed the article has not been improved since the last AFD, so I will personally volunteer to rewrite it (and rename it accordingly, say "History of display technology"). Casablanca2000in (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with Casablanca2000in that the article has some formatting issues, but the very idea of an article that shows examples of different types of displays over the years is down right "encyclopedic". Properly written, it will take existing information from many different articles, add context, and present it in a way that is very useful. This is basically a "list of" type article, and while not a great example of how to format one, it is a great example of how useful lists can be. Seems perfectly fine with WP:LISTS via a modified time line. It has the potential to be an excellent article and a valuable resource. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs formatting changes. But not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is pretty much a textbook example of why we ignore all rules. Keeping this article (although probably with a better title, which is a matter for talk page discussion) would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia than deleting it, so we should do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This cannot be defined "...simply as an image gallery...". This shows the evolution of the subject. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Casablanca200in. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2011 (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.