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 Merge into Web Design. --Shirahadasha 03:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid website (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article does not establish the notability of this term. And there is already an article which discusses liquid layouts. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Fluid Website is a real phenomenon, however on its own doesn't deserve a seperate article. Merge with Web Design. Ogimmefiction 19:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as it doesn't seem to have any content that isn't already covered in the liquid layout section. -- Whpq 20:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Web Design. Seems different enough that redirect would not be appropriate. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as suggested. Too short for a truly notable article - reads almost like a simple definition from a slang or jargon dictionary, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also seems to violate WP:SELF in the last sentence. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:41, 2 May 2007 (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.