Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Web Design


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 08:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad Web Design
It's hard to even begin to say why something this strange should be deleted. Looks like it exists as a way to drop the creator's site URL. 2005 05:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:OR, WP:NOT a how (not) to, guaranteed WP:POV problems. Maybe there should be an article on poor web design and adherence to basic standards, but this isn't it. -- Kinu t /c  05:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 *  Speedy delete the examples make it into an attack page. Inherently non-NPOV. -- Koffieyahoo 06:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment even with citations you are saying I cannot improve this to not be NPOV? All I would have to do is add a section showing the viewpoint of people who say that bad webdesign is not the only consideration. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, for all of the items on the list I can personally think of a reason in which case it could actually be part of good webdesign. -- Koffieyahoo 07:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out! Let me look at this some more tomarrow, but what I plan to do is to provide keep most of the lists, but add several veiwpoints asserting exactly what you said. That would be the only way to make the article NPOV after all :) I am logging off after this post, but I intend to fix this tommarow —— Eagle (ask me for help) 07:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Let me try to salvage... as deletion is not the only way. With a little effort this can become something good. Really a simple tag and removal of the links would have done, as the core infomation can be verified. (will do so) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment removed the examples, thus no longer an attack page. (will add non attack links and citations soon)—— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete seeing what others are saying, I don't see reason to improve this as we already have an article on web design. (Just found today) Hence I change my vote to weak delete. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 14:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, since it is hard to see how it can become an encyclopedia article rather than a how-to guide or tutorial, neither of which is appropriate on Wikipedia. (I also note with some amusement that the linked "top ten mistakes" list includes "not using tables for layout". So much for every advance in web design since 1997...) &mdash; Haeleth Talk 11:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wow, this is awful, should have been speedy delete.
 * Delete as original research and as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. As an aside, I'm personally rather fond of Vincent Flanders' Web Pages that Suck. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. This is certainly a valid subject; since the WWW was invented, making fun of ugly or unusable web pages has been around since Mirsky's Worst of the Web; see also the Vincent Flanders site that dpbsmith mentioned, and which is probably an article-worthy web site in itself.  Oddly, we have articles on bad web design topics like mystery meat navigation, but no general article.  This could become the start of one, but it needs substantial improvement, and what's here isn't all that helpful.  Smerdis of Tlön 15:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete sadly - there is undoubtedly an encyclopaedia article waiting to be written on the many horros of bad web design, but this is the wrong content at the wrong title. Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. We have an article for W3C. And while I personally agree with what's there now, I think any article at this title would probably be OR. In fact, it may get worse, with edit-warring about what exactly constitutes bad web design. On the other hand, I echo Smerdis of Tlön's suggestion for some sort of non-OR parent article on the subject, at some other name. Jacqui ★ 20:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.