Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web template hook styles
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wizardman (talk | contribs) at 02:43, 22 April 2011 (Closing debate, result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 02:43, 22 April 2011 by Wizardman (talk | contribs) (Closing debate, result was delete)
- 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Web template hook styles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research, not recognised terminology, no references, cannot find any references Justinc (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This looks like a "how to" article, containing examples of coding. It seems reasonably clear, and free from any obvious promotional agendas. I'll defer to the judgment of people with more experience in script web design as to whether this deserves to be transwikied or should be deleted outright. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As someone with considerable experience of web templating engines, this thing is a mess. What's its point? It's just random lists and comparisons of minor syntactic points, without drawing any real comparisons or conclusions. Which as it's entirely unreferenced, it can hardly do either without turning into WP:OR. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] - 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.