Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSS Values


 * 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 of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wikibooks. TigerShark 09:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

CSS Values
List of different properties for CSS, but Wikipedia is not a web development reference manual. Possibly transwiki to wikibooks? -- Where 03:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * think how does this differ from any other list on wikipedia? it is not exorbitantly large - it is just a good little reference article that fits well within the realms of an encyclopedia. Why would Comparison of layout engines (CSS) remain? If Language pages are linked to a list of language codes, the css article should equally link to some real world facts. The size and character of this would hardly justify a transwiki or merge with the wikibook on css. --Iancarter 04:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep- of course I'm a web developer, so I may be a tad biased. Cutting it down to the basics and transfering the rest to another wiki with a link would also be acceptable. Artw 05:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --Coredesat 06:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikibooks. It really looks like a reference manual and the non-list parts aren't very encyclopedic. If it's kept for some reason, please rename to Lis of CSS values and keep the capitalization in the headers and the title in check. It should be "CSS values" and "CSS properties". The bolded letters should not be capitalized. - Mgm|(talk) 12:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikibooks, this has a number of problems: the source is shot through with HTML/CSS by its nature, and pure wiki mark-up is the ideal. The article makes no reference to versions of CSS (could be fixed). It is badly named because it lists CSS values. An article telling you about the origins of the idea (who/what/why) would be useful... but then that's probably better handled in the main CSS article. The article is really not suitable for Wikipedia since large parts of it are very howto-ish/technical documentation. It's really part of a wikibook. - Motor (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - Way too technical/detailed information for an encyclopedia. Wickethewok 13:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Very nice and should go somewhere in the Wikiworld, but not in ~pedia. ~ trialsanderrors 19:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki for sure. Just zis Guy you know? 12:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki I already transwikied it. --Iancarter 15:42, 20 June 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.