Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Display examples Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Display_examples

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 no consensus.  Sandstein  06:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Display examples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article in its intent and form is an image gallery contrary to WP:NOT. Specifically, point 4 which addresses articles which are a collection of images. All of the images are best displayed as part of the particle for which it illustrates. Whpq (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Assuming that all of the pictures are properly Commons material, this seems to be a useful gallery. It attempts to assemble a time line of various electronic displays, and illustrates each with a picture so that what they look like can be compared. A better title, like for instance timeline of electronic displays, might be chosen. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A timeline article still would not need to be illustrated with every example of a display element listed as a wikilink to the appropriate article would still suffice. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment On the other hand, a text-only timeline article would not allow for visual comparison about what each of these displays looked like. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Retitle, and Improve, per Smerdis of Tlön. It also needs a little introduction so people can understand the concept. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: But improve. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2009 (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.