Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usage share of browser display resolutions
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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Usage share of browser display resolutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not clear why this article is notable. If anything, it should be a section within the article on Usage share of web browsers or something similar. Delete per WP:IINFO Karl.brown (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - wikipedia is not a compendium of raw stats. -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Such statistics are an important part of the Web and are frequently analyzed it its development. The article can be expanded.Smallman12q (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this article is a copy and paste of data from a single source. While the subject may be notable, this article presents incomplete data in a way that could be misinterpreted by the reader. This data is based on this one websites logs. If it were a more general website the data might be more useful but w3schools is a site that is trafficed by website designers more than average people. Again the topic might be notable but should be based on more references. RadioFan (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some stats from W3Counter.Smallman12q (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think piling on more stats are helpful. What is missing is critical analysis such as explanations of why any of this is important as a topic. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment agreed. Even with more sources, it's got to be made clear why this is notable. It's not clear at all from the current article.--RadioFan (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's notable as web layouts are often optimized for a particular resolution. Smallman12q (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment agreed. Even with more sources, it's got to be made clear why this is notable. It's not clear at all from the current article.--RadioFan (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think piling on more stats are helpful. What is missing is critical analysis such as explanations of why any of this is important as a topic. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as making no claim of notability, or stubify. Wikipedia could have a page on this topic, but this isn't it and the direction of travel is currently entirely wrong. If the content of the page improves radically, ping my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The most recent information may make for a useful sentence or two in Display resolution or Web browser, but as the article stands, it's just an indiscriminate listing of statistics (which Wikipedia is not) with little hope of progressing beyond that. 98.245.42.127 (talk) 05:21, 2 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.