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

Revision as of 00:29, 25 February 2007

Revision as of 03:20, 25 February 2007

Line 12:

*'''Keep''' per [[User:GreyWanderer|Grey]] and precedent at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of web browsers]]. The article should be better sourced, but is most certainly not devoid of [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. -- [[User:Black Falcon|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, [http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_css.php] 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), [http://www.webdevout.net/browser-support-css] [http://www.quirksmode.org/css/contents.html] 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. [[User:Nssdfdsfds|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, [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)