Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of layout engines (CSS): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
delete (or transwiki if a host can be found) |
|||
Line 28:
*'''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)
| |||