Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CSS frameworks


 * 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. Will be happy to provide Toussaint with a copy of the deleted article to allow for him to work on it in his userspace. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

List of CSS frameworks

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

With few exceptions, list of external links. Probably speedy a3 material, but it's been up for a year and a half, with a fair number of editors. It might be better to keep it, though, so the links don't wind up in the CSS framework article. weak delete SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. A3 material indeed. Do we have to seek compromises like this with spammers to protect an article? If they try to fill CSS framework with countless advertising links, giving them another page to play with doesn't seem the right thing to do to me. --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The subject of CSS frameworks is notable, and there may well be individual notable frameworks, but there is nothing in this article worth salvaging. Any frameworks that are notable can be listed in CSS framework, but not as a list of external links, and if that article gets too big a list can be spun out as a summary style sub-article. We certainly shouldn't be keeping articles just to keep vandals and spammers away from other articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold and week keep. As the starting editor of the article in question, I started this article as a basic list for CSS frameworks due to the possible seemingly-quick fill up of the CSS framework article with external links to the websites of existing CSS framework projects. At best, I would like a bit more time accorded to this article so that separate articles could be created so that it wouldn't be filled up with so many external links; however, doing so may arouse some ire against the creation of so many articles on less-notable CSS frameworks, so I would also like to take time to pull up examples of notable usage of certain CSS frameworks through Google so that the articles won't look like ads or spam. --Toussaint (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Toussaint, if you want, I can move it to your userspace instead of deleting it (if that's the consensus). That would give you more time to work on it as above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and replace with a category which will naturally enforce verifiably notable inclusion. -- samj in out 16:33, 23 February 2009 (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.