Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of layout engines (CSS): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Delete |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''keep'''. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:blue;">Majorly</span>]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:green;">(o rly?)</span>]]</sub> 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
===[[Comparison of layout engines (CSS)]]===
:{{la|Comparison of layout engines (CSS)}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of layout engines (CSS)|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 24#{{anchorencode:Comparison of layout engines (CSS)}}|View log]])</noinclude>
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.
Line 20 ⟶ 27:
*'''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 [[Wikipedia: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 '-'). -- [[User:Ratarsed|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. [[User:El T|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. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 20:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:Surely that implies that it is accurate to start with. I doubt that. [[User:Nssdfdsfds|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. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 20:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]. --[[User:Voidxor|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.--[[User:Vox Rationis|Vox Rationis]] 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. [[WP:NOT#IINFO]] of the how-to guide variety. Absolutely fails to be an [[WP:ENC]]yclopedia article. The [[WP:ATT]]ributability, 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. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(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. –[[User talk:Pomte|Pomte]] 01:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||