Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of browser engines (CSS support)


 * 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 procedural keep. Main reason for closing as an NAC is that it's technically malformed, but the in-rationale and in-nomination insults from the nom and overall uncivil dialogue is quickly making this nomination a no go.

Neutral otherwise; no prejudice to a new and properly-formatted nomination; the nominator is advised to read WP:AFDHOWTO and not title it 'insert garbage here'.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 18:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Comparison of *insert garbage*
Comparison of browser engines (CSS support) Comparison of browser engines (graphics support) Comparison of browser engines (HTML support) Comparison of browser engines (typography support) Comparison of JavaScript engines (DOM support) Comparison of layout engines (XHTML 1.1) Comparison of layout engines (XHTML) Comparison of layout engines (XML) I proposed all of them for deletion and nobody rejected it for a week. Then a smol brain came along and unproded them with the reason that they were nominated before aeons before like in 2006. Anyway. I propose we finally delete this trash. — Updatepedia (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep: no valid/policy-based rationale for deletion. Calling an admin who was just doing their job of applying WP policy a "smol brain" is not a great move on the nom's part, either. No prejudice against another, civil and policy-based nomination.  Billets Mauves €500 16:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I already wrote my rationale for each single article in the PROD for the specific page. You should read them. That's why I'm angry I have to explain everything again to people who seem to have no idea about anything technical. — Updatepedia (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Angry or not, I'm afraid you will have to copy your rationales to the AfD page anyways, if you want these articles deleted. By the way, bundling these AfDs the proper way might have been a more sensible option (see WP:MULTIAFD).  Billets Mauves €500 16:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So I'm supposed to read WP:* before I'm allowed to do anything at all, big brain? Updatepedia (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, AfDs are quite procedure-heavy, and discussions have to be centered on whether or not the nominated article(s) is/are able to meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines. So yeah, consider reading pages like this one, which explains Wikipedia's deletion policy, before proposing some articles for deletion or bringing them to AfD. Another thing: making comments on other editors' brain sizes can be considered uncivil. It would be good if you could reword your last answer, as well as your nomination while we are at it. Thanks in advance.  Billets Mauves €500 17:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's all right, medium brain, I'm gonna rewrite the reasons here:
 * - EdgeHTML, KHTML, MSHTML (Trident), Tasman, Presto are all dead engines, nobody needs a feature comparison of those.
 * - Blink (highest marketshare) isn't even being compared in most of the tables because the articles are so old and have never been improved
 * - the articles haven't been significantly improved since their creation
 * - I already made a table of relevant image formats in Comparison of browser engines to supercede the article.
 * - raw outdated data (example font-feature-settings is working in Safari according to caniuse.com, yet it is marked as no for Webkit in Comparison_of_browser_engines_(typography_support). This is not the only outdated entry, just one I randomly picked. All of the data is outdated and mostly wrong.)
 * - features from old working drafts that never became standards
 * - relevant features are implemented in all engines (webkit, blink, gecko), so you're just comparing yes to yes which is pointless Updatepedia (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:06, 10 September 2022 (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.