Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GUI Design Principles

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 AND TRANSWIKI to WikiBooks. Herostratus 05:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GUI Design Principles[edit]

Badly wikified, unsourced, possibly original research. - Sikon 14:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It reads like spam to me. I put it as db-spam. The Evil Clown _{Please review me!} 14:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not spam (what for?) but plain old WP:OR. Sandstein 15:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not the answer to the problems with this article. Simple editing is the answer to the problems with this article. It's a very bad article on a subject that has been the subject of books and papers, two of which (although there are many more) are cited in the article. The way to deal with it is to take the books and papers in hand and edit the article. That requires ordinary editors to be bold and use the tools that they posess to write, and does not require either AFD or an administrator to hit any buttons. AFD is not cleanup. Keep. Uncle G 15:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. They are right; this is no place for wikipedia, but we definitely need these for wikibooks. George Leung 16:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good article can be written about this, it is encyclopedic, there are sources. The present one is a start. The first sentence should read There are generally agreed (footnotes) standards.... and then discuss them. DGG 06:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per George Leung. - Aagtbdfoua 02:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as WP:OR. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. No-brainer. Good article, but not meant for an encyclopedia. utcursch | talk 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George has expressed a wise idea. Transwiki per George Leung. WP is not a programming guide repository - but WB is. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and xwiki If this were properly cited I would vote keep or at least listify. However, in its current state delete and xwiki. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would stick with the transwiki by itself - once that's done, you can do a {{db-transwiki}} and just be done. --Dennisthe2 23:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, "Further Reading" can be parsed into references. Edivorce 17:19, 3 April 2007 (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.