Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of browser engines (CSS support) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  11:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Comparison of browser engines (CSS support)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Pages nominated: Reason for deletion:
 * Comparison of browser engines (CSS support)
 * Original proposed deletion was Out of the six engines compared only 2 are still under active development.
 * Comparison of browser engines (graphics support)
 * Original proposed deletion reason was Moved image format table to Comparison of browser engines and removed outdated engines. Rest is irrelevant and outdated information.
 * Comparison of browser engines (HTML support)
 * Original proposed deletion reason was All engines on this page that are being compared are no longer under active development except for Webkit and Gecko. A lot of elements and attributes have already been deprecated and new ones haven't been added. The article is not salvageable.
 * Comparison of browser engines (typography support)
 * Original proposed deletion reason was: Engines are no longer under active development, SVG fonts and EOT fonts are no longer used and deprecated, most tables don't compare the most used browser engine Blink, information has been integrated into Comparison of browser engines
 * Comparison of JavaScript engines (DOM support)
 * Original proposed deletion was Out of the six engines compared only 2 are still under active development.
 * Comparison of layout engines (XHTML)
 * Original proposed deletion reason was All browser engines except Gecko and WebKit named in the article are no longer under active development.
 * Comparison of layout engines (XML)
 * Original proposed deletion reason was All browser engines except Gecko and WebKit named in the article are no longer under active development

Procedurally refiling Articles for deletion/Comparison of browser engines (CSS support). My policy-based reason for deletion is that, in addition to the original proposed deletion reasons quoted above, these lists are no better than the list deleted at Articles for deletion/Comparison of JavaScript engines; that is, to partially quote from Aoidh, these are "simple listing[s]" that [are] specifically mentioned under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. [... They have] no context and [are] painfully out-of-date. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. This discussion needs more participants before a rough consensus can emerge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment seems too technical for wiki, a list of various "statements"? (words?) that are supported in each brower, without giving an explanation for what each one is/does. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pinging Articles for deletion/Comparison of web browser engines (typography support) participants:, , , , , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pinging Articles for deletion/Comparison of layout engines (Document Object Model) participants:, , and . Cunard (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. simple listing[s] ... [with] no context', 'list of various "statements"? (words?) that are supported in each brower, without giving an explanation for what each one is/does', and 'painfully out-of-date' are fixable problems.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all: As much as I despise the rampant abuse of incredibly subjective "policies" such as WP:NOT, the unfortunate reality is that we slowly but steadily approach the non-fictional (and much more depressing) technological singularity of an utter lack of competition and a few major companies copying each other to make lucrative streams of revenue for themselves by essentially doing nothing with their software, making version comparisons all but meaningless (among many other awful effects on the market)... where was I? Ah yes, insofar as this AfD the point is that there are simply no reasonable prospects whatsoever of such comparisons of current versions becoming reasonable articles, while any attempt at historical comparison would result in vastly more detail than could be deemed reasonable for Wikipedia. And besides: as I wrote almost half a decade ago now, if you want these types of comparisons deleted, nominate everything in Category:Browser engine comparisons. The nominator has gone above and beyond merely doing so, by finding similar closely-related articles as well. Modernponderer (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I didn't do the finding; someone else did and made a malformed nomination that was closed for being malformed, and I refiled it properly. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete all per WP:NOT. These are just guides to assist someone in answering "What browser should I use?" and are way too technical for the average reader to make use of. For those reasons, I don't think that comparison articles should be something on an encyclopedia, and I believe these are things someone should just go to a tech review site or forum for. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all, these pages fail WP:NOTGUIDE. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:02, 28 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.