Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of layout engines (Document Object Model)


 * 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of layout engines (Document Object Model)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Woefully incomplete and out of date. It hasn't had a meaningful update in over 7 years. And given how much browsers and the web have changed in that time, it would be a major effort to salvage this page. Best to remove it. Pmffl (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is a weak nomination rationale, however the sentiment is correct, this article is unintelligible and not encyclopedic. Szzuk (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, or at least recycle. There's a lot of good information here which shouldn't be lost.  People are always going to be writing (often in absurd detail) about the latest developments, but here we have a good history of the subject.  Let's not throw that out.  If it really bothers you that it's not up to date, that can be fixed by bringing it up to date.  In the alternative, rename it to something like Comparison of layout engines from 1990 to 2012 or whatever.  Wikipedia is too much focused on what's new and shiny.  I'm OK with merging this into some other existing article, or refactoring it in some other way, but let's not discard the information.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the historical value argument, which is an important part of why I cleaned up the HTML and CSS comparison articles a week ago. (But I won't be doing any more personally.) The problems with the DOM article are worse than those peers, though, in 2 respects: the tables are in worse shape, and it's a more abstruse technical topic that would probably require legit expertise to know what's going on. -Pmffl (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I just now renamed this article to Comparison of JavaScript engines (DOM support). After responding to RoySmith, it occurred to me that the DOM is best approached from the JavaScript (JS) perspective. As I recently made clear in my rewrite of the web browser engine article, the 2 engines of a modern browser (layout and JS) stay in sync via the DOM. But in terms of actual DOM function call usage, that's primarily a JS programmer concern. So this DOM comparison article really is best categorized under the JS engine umbrella.

So instead of deleting it, it's now in the purview of the wikipedians who would be capable of updating and maintaining it: the JavaScript programmers.

-Pmffl (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:12, 6 May 2018 (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.