Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lower level 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 Lower level design. No clear consensus regarding High-level design; after discussion with the nominator we've agreed that a second AFD is preferable to relisting. postdlf (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Lower level design

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This subject isn't notable. It is a concept in design, but not so significant as to require its own article, especially because the boundary between low and high level design depends largely on context. This can be dealt well enough, perhaps better, in other design articles that provide needed context. Sancho 05:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:


 * Delete Lower level design, because it's a neologism at best and WP:OR at worst. However, Keep High level design, since it's a valid term, widely used and easily sourced (although it's a mess right now). I don't know that it was a good idea to nominate these two in the same AFD. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable WP:NEO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable neologism. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:53, 2 January 2013 (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.