Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software pagination

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. MBisanz ^talk 20:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software pagination

Sounds like a how-to. Wikipedia is not a guide. Weird article, anyway. Elm-39 - T/C 17:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Also seems to be plagiarized from comments made here. ←Spidern → 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article has been completely rewritten in an encyclopedic manner, which addresses the WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and copyvio concerns. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 18:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a lot of work, is a bit of a "how to" article, and only really discusses software pagination for web pages (others uses are pagination of printed material like newspapers, magazines, directories etc.) And it needs references. But it seems to have only been created today, so perhaps the author will upgrade it. On the print side, there are a fair number of firms involved, and presumably in the Internet world it will become an increasingly important topic. pagination software has plenty of results. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page top link to document layout pagination (my field!) which explains the lack of mention in the article. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic is clearly notable. I have completely rewritten the article from scratch, and all that it needs now is some expansion and sources. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 18:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A considerable improvement, and a more accurate title. The sources are sufficient to back up the content. Notability of this more narrow topic is clear from Web Page Pagination Aymatth2 (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's an important concept in the world of CSS and single-source publishing J L G 4 1 0 4 20:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pagination. (Not enough material overall or difference in the concepts to justify three separate articles)Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not merge, because this is just the start of an article focussed on the Internet problem, probably of interest to many web site designers. I would expect it to grow. The print pagination problem is distinctly different, since it has to juggle text or listings with related pictures and ads on fixed-dimension pages, creating links like "continued from page 47". The Internet topic is mostly about performance, and the print problem about layout. I don't see one article discussing these two different subjects. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or Merge~~ Not a how-to to me. It's told me about a different meaning of pagination. It's info that I don't think should be deleted. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aymatth2 that it's a quite different ballgame, so I've gone for a keep. Peridon (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's enough material here to mention it on the main pagination page and have a link here with more information. This could eventually include mobile and touchscreen implementations. FlyingToaster 00:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but what a difference a day makes--I was doubting LinguistAtLarge's credentials when s/he talked about a complete rewrite (I was doubting some very basic skills), to find that the article has been re-butchered. Problem is, a useful source has been added and I don't know this stuff well enough (or, I don't have enough incentive to learn it), so the new 'improvements' can't simply be turned back easily--at least, I can't do that. Also, there seems to be a pretty serious copyright violation going on in that last paragraph, and I am just going to go and remove that. Linguist, please look at this again! Red pen in hand, if only to correct my corrections. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've removed the reference added by User:Nitinaggarwalin, because it's not a reliable source and it's his newly submitted article that he wants to promote. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 20:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re Merge. There's arguably just about enough information here for one article, but Pagination is one line long and the web pagination page isn't very long either. It's not easy to say a lot about pagination. 11:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs)

I definitely oppose merging. The two topics really are different, even though they share the same word "pagination". One refers to fitting and arranging items on a fixed-size page for printing, and the other refers to a software process about splitting records for display on multiple web pages. Additionally, there is plenty of material for full articles on both, in my opinion. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 20:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LinguistAtLarge. Don't merge. I may take a shot at the print pagination article sometime. Far from a trivial problem, huge volumes (think of all the different newspapers and magazines) and some big firms involved. Really quite different from breaking up content for display web pages. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:04, 10 February 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.