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


 * 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 keep.  Majorly  (o rly?) 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of layout engines (CSS)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is not appropriate content for wikipedia. It is WP:OR, and lacks WP:RS. Bug lists of this nature have no place here. It is impossible to provide reliable sources for the claims.


 * Delete - there are plenty of third-party sites doing a much better job of describing this kind of thing. Nssdfdsfds 13:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - If there are "plenty of third-party sites doing a much better job [...]", why don't you list them so they provide as WP:RS? I dispute this argument as being contradictory. For the other part of the quote, see below. --Grey 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are links at the bottom of the page, which are primary sources of their author's own original research. This page cannot hope to keep up. I don't believe that "westciv.com" is a reliable source as to the CSS specification laid down by the World Wide Web Consortium and as actually implemented by say Mozilla. Nssdfdsfds 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is not a "bug list". This article seeks to give an overview over which parts of the specifications are supported by each browser and if not, say so and provide a source detailing the problem. This is not OR. Sources are provided for the most part, and if not, should be added. So instead of deleting the article, we should add sources and remove parts that are OR. --Grey 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It sure looks like a bug list to me - it's concerned with detailing non-compliance with a spec. I also can't see that it's practicable to source all the statements contained in the article (there are hundreds). Nssdfdsfds 00:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - See the reasons why Comparison of web browsers was not deleted in the debate and on its talk page. Comparisons therefore are not forbidden on Wikipedia and imho should be kept. --Grey 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Grey and precedent at Articles for deletion/Comparison of web browsers. The article should be better sourced, but is most certainly not devoid of reliable sources.  -- Black Falcon 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comparison of web browsers is a far more sensible article subject, because saying whether Internet Explorer is/was available for the Macintosh is an easily verifiable statement of fact. The same cannot be said for this page. The analogy is inappropriate - this is not a comparison, it is a bug list detailing non-compliance with CSS. The browser manufacturers do not state their support for each feature of CSS on their websites. Therefore each statement on this page (each grid cell is a statement), such as "text-transform is supported by Windows IE 4.0 and better" appears to be original research. As such it has no place on Wikipedia. If it is not original research it should be sourced to a reliable source. I do not see that there are any reliable sources for this information. Moreover, what content there is on the page does not correspond with available sources (but since the sources aren't given, it's unverifable). For instance, lists problems with many features listed here as "Y". Yet this page also lists bug with some features, yet it doesn't mention others. Doing this implies that the article is in someway authoritative, and bugs do not exist in other areas. This is wrong, and there are many other bugs.
 * For me the thing that makes this article an obvious article to be deleted is that the third-party sources contradict each other. This is because detailing bugs (which is what this page is doing) is a difficult and time-consuming process. Looking at just the first two external links (which I assume the user is intended to reference to verify the information in the article),  there are conflicts. The only way to resolve these conflicts would be WP:OR in actually testing the CSS support of the browsers. Since the sources conflict, and statements in this article cannot be consistently & reliably sourced, the sources are not WP:RS. Accordingly, the article must be WP:OR in its entirety, and should be deleted. Nssdfdsfds 00:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me first thank you for your detailed response. I will not contest the technical (software) points you have brought up as I admit to having limited knowledge in this area.  I will also not contest your claim that the sources are not RS (they looked reliable to me, but again, my knowledge in this area is quite limited).  I will, however, note that your conclusions do not necessarily follow from your premises.
 * First, if the sources conflict (I'm not sure how, but I will take your word for it), they are not necessarily both unreliable sources. It could be that one is reliable and the other is not.
 * Second, if the sources conflict and this conflict is resolved in the article (i.e., one version is chosen over another), this need not be original research as the editor may simply have utilized one of the sources without knowledge of the other (this is working within informational constraints or limited research, not original research).
 * Third, even if an editor actually tested the CSS support of the browsers to resolve some conflicts (which would qualify as OR), this does not make the article in its entirey OR.
 * However, to be more practically address the concerns of this AfD, let me ask this: can the OR, RS, and WP:V issues be resolved? Is there really hopeless disagreement between multiple reliable sources (ignoring non-reliable sources)?  If there is such hopeless disagreement, can the article be changed to reflect/discuss the areas where there is disagreement?  If the answers to this are No, Yes, No with good reason, then I'll agree the article ought to be deleted.  My "keep" comment was in response to your nomination that the article contained OR and lacked reliable sources as both of these problems are (usually) correctible, and also because the article is well-organized.  If, however, the OR/RS issues cannot be resolved and portions of the article cannot be altered to reflect the existence of differing viewpoints in published sources, then I will support deletion.  I know this is an awful lot to ask to be "convinced" to change my position, and I will completely understand if you choose not to go to all that trouble.  However, in the end, my being convinced is not as important as determining whether the article is truly, inherently, and irreparably flawed, or whether it can be fixed/improved.  Cheers, Black Falcon 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination; In addition, Whilst I could see this would be a great resource for web developers if it was sourced, I don't see this as being able to follow the precedent of Articles for deletion/Comparison of web browsers -- If someone is prepared to go and cite each case, then they should at least remove the sections for which the W3 hasn't at least got to 'Candidate Recommendation' status without a thumping great warning. I also don't think that browser proprietary extensions should be listed at all (all those starting with a '-'). -- Ratarsed 10:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - as noted above, see why Comparison of web browsers was kept. Yes, the article has issues in terms of sourcing, size, and the inclusion of unfinalised specs. But they can be fixed (except perhaps page size), and the strengths of the page are very substantial. El T 13:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: this is very volatile topic. While the information may be correct today tomorrow things could change. If kept this article (and similar ones) should prominently display a date when the contents was reviewed last time. Pavel Vozenilek 20:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely that implies that it is accurate to start with. I doubt that. Nssdfdsfds 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I used word may. I do not work with CSS or the engines and have no opinion on current article accuracy. Pavel Vozenilek 20:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Black Falcon. --Voidxor 04:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not worthy or notable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for minute technical details of minute aspects of the huge realm of internet design, it is an encylopedia... This belongs in a technical manual, no doubt, but that is not what wikipedia is.--Vox Rationis 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT of the how-to guide variety. Absolutely fails to be an WP:ENCyclopedia article. The WP:ATTributability, or not, of the content is irrelevant. The best referencing in the world wouldn't make this suitable for Wikipedia. There ought to be some WMF/Wikia project this can be transwikied to, where it would be right at home, but this isn't it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as objective and encyclopedic tabulation of verifiable information. You can call it a bug list to make it sound bad, but it is still a compatibility list. This is not a how-to guide. If sources are contradictory, more reason to verify them, and verifying the correctness of sources is not OR. If the tables are neglecting any CSS properties, then mention them on the Talk page. –Pomte 01:14, 4 March 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.