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 of the debate was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP because information is actually usefull...(aman)
• Delete because this is an encyclopedia and you wouldn't find this in an encyclopedia.
• Keep It's true, useful information that various other articles may well link to. Pseudomonas 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This looks like a cut and past copyrite violation. Anyone know the source?Obina 18:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT a technical manual of niche software features. Sandstein 19:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT... not even an encyclopedia article per se. It appears to be WP:OR as well. It's not a C & P copyvio as far as I can tell.--Isotope23 20:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. --Khoikhoi 03:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - if one wants an encyclopedia one shall resort to britannica et al. Wikipedia will never resemble those, no matter how hard one individual tries. One can deduce the cause of this with simple logic. On the other hand the same reason enables it to have far greater virtues. :Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.:Slicky 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "If one wants an encyclopaedia" implies wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. The issue is not size limit or notability; the issue at hand is whether or not this is encyclopaedic. Please bear that in mind. Copyvio? --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 06:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sandstein's comments above. --Hetar 08:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Anyone supporting deletion should compare the page to the Wikipiedia's article Comparison of Browsers, which is a very well known and well bookmarked encyclopedia page! The Comparison of layout engines (DOM) article is a table, and last I knew it table data had a place in encyclopedias, regardless of whether some editors see it as jargon or not. --Heyseuss 03:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sandstein is wrong. This is not a manual, but a comparison table. The article, with its siblings comparing CSS-support, HTML and XHTML supoort, etc, is informative, referenced to and talked about on the Inernet, and very useful. Even Encyclopedias can contain specialised information. Read Encyclopedia Brittanica's articles about quantum physics and you'll see. The article also cites relevant sources, and is not OR. ANd it's definately not a copyright violation. It's a summary of the information available in the sources. Are there anyone who knows DOM-scripting or have read the sources among the people who would like to see this page go? --itpastorn 20:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Extending this AFD to Category:Software comparison and all its contents. --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 08:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want to place the AFD tag on all ~70 of those pages, feel free, but make a new nomination now that this is already off the ground. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, quite a useful page. Well-referenced. It would be nice, though, to cut back by trimming a lot of useless junk; e.g. in the validation section, how about just writing "none of these products have any of these features"? Christopher Parham (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.