Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icon Design

Icon Design
non-encyclopedic dictdef. DCEdwards1966 10:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep: there's far more there than a dicdef - none of the second paragraph would find its way into a dictionary and looks encyclopaedic to me. quite interesting stub.--Tomheaton 11:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see this as an unencyclopedic topic (or unencyclopedic content), nor a dicdef. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 13:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could do with some good and bad examples though. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 15:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep agree with above keep votes. Kappa 16:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The additions since the VfD tag was added are beginning to make a difference. This really should have been tagged for cleanup or substub rather than VfD. iMeowbot~Mw 16:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, definately tag as needing though. --fvw *  17:31, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems noteworthy. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 04:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme keep, people often mistake icons as trivial, but they're a fundamental part of the GUIs most of us use, and many developers not only put much thought into them, but hire graphic artists to produce them (it's quite a specialty). Wyss 03:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme keep, Improvement a must, presenting and discussing the key techniques to design professonal icons is a good ways do develop the article (e.g. gradients, shadows, shades, perspective, abstraction, etc.) Free artists out there, please give a contribution. 19 Dec. 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.155.32.72 (talk)