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

Comparison of layout engines (CSS)

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - There are links at the bottom of the page, which are likely to be better updated. 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.
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep per 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 reliable sources. -- Black Falcon 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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, [1] 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), [2] [3] 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)[reply]