Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over-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. W.marsh 16:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Over-design

Over-design (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

From PROD. I think this is a valid article, but it looks marginal enough that it'd only be fair to run it through AfD. Is just a DicDef? I would say no, its a stub that could be expanded well beyond a DicDef. Is it an important enough concept to have its own article? I don't know, but I think it's at least somewhat important. Certainly the concepts "User Interface", "User Friendliness", and "Usability" are very important concepts and need to be broken out into subarticles, of which this should be one, maybe. We have an article on Baby Duck Syndrome and this is at least as important. Herostratus 13:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as nominator, see above. Herostratus 13:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge as per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary and this seems like it would be better in a site like Wiktionary, or would be better merged into an article about design. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 13:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT, and as I suspect this is merely one person's own definition of over-design. Further, Herostratus, if you never thought it should be deleted in the first place, why didn't you simply label it with {{notability}} or some such? Someguy1221 14:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. I did a search on this one and while it is abundantly clear that it is a term that is commonly used there is no substance beyond "dictionary definition" that I can find. It's hard to see this becoming more than a dicdef. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not a widely known term (read: I didn't hear it). Not in the Hacker's Dictionary like creeping featurism or second system effect. Pavel Vozenilek 21:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's a common term in engineering in general (outside the computer world), but I'm not certain that anyone even in those fields are discussing this specifically. --Charlene 10:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• I'd say delete unless referenced; I see no potential for expansion. - Mike Rosoft 08:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 22:38, 6 June 2007 (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.