A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ken Kern, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Ken Kern. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your new (ish) article in the main article space. I might be missing something, but I don't understand what the article is trying to be. Is it a guide regarding the layout of a page to conform to aesthetic designs or is it a original research essay about aesthetic layout of webpages? Would you have an objection to me moving the page into your userspace so that you can clarify what Holy Grail means? Thanks Hasteur (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, Thanks for your attention to this article, as I could use guidance. The intent of the article is to summarize the problem (lack of a sufficient method to achieve a widely desired design), list the methods which people have come up with for working around it, and supply reference links to more detailed information. I suppose that the article could be considered a technical overview for web designers/developers, although web users might want to know about this issue as they are certainly affected by it. One reason I'm writing it is because it would have saved me days, maybe weeks, of research if it had existed a couple of years ago. It's hard to see what you mean by "essay about aesthetic layout of webpages"; the first paragraph of the "The Problem" section might be interpreted by someone that way, although it seems quite factual to me.

As for original research, I am currently working on the article a bit at a time, attempting to find quality, authoritative references. The content in general is easily verifiable; the issue is to find a reference that concisely verifies each sentence or paragraph when taken individually.

You have the discouraged template on your usertalk page. I know how you feel, as I've been there. Although I've copped an attitude about some things, I understand the editing procedures better now, and the reasons that they exist. So I'm giving WP another try. I'd rather be improving the article tonight instead of fighting for its existence.

You can help me by pointing out things that sound like a personal essay, and things that need a reference. As for userspace, is the article in its current state such an embarrassment? It seems better than a lot of what's on WP. I was hoping to add a few things and take down the newpage template soon. Also, shouldn't this discussion move into the article's talk page at some point?

I hope we can work together to improve this article. Hope to hear from you soon. Davidlark (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -Mike Restivo (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]