Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of web browsers

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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. For one thing, we can't delete an article and move its content into other articles, that violates the GFDL. There are no other votes to delete besides the nominator, and it's been up since Tuesday. Stifle 01:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of web browsers

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article reads like a FAQ or a product review, not an encyclopedia. Most of the text of the page is in the form of large tables rather than an encyclopedic article; what little accurate text there is often wanders into configuration advice. Moreover, the information is outdated and inaccurate — some of it never was true, and none of it is referenced, meaning that the page also violates either WP:CITE or WP:NOR. The article itself warns that its content isn't accurate; the information it provides would be better suited to Category:Web browsers and associated articles anyway. We should delete this article, and move any salvageable content into the article for the relevant browser. —donhalcon^╤ 14:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Reorganise layout and provide links to named browser articles. The comparison is the most useful aspect of the information.
• Keep. This is not remotely indiscriminant, but a well-presented features list. My only criticism is that it will be very difficult to keep up to date, but if the editors are willing to do so, it's a useful reference. Removing detail to individual browser articles would defeat the purpose. In fact, I referenced Comparison_of_wiki_software last week and found it useful. bikeable (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Utility is not at issue, only whether the information belongs in the encyclopedia namespace in list form. —donhalcon^╤ 16:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "Utility is irrelevant"? I disagree; ease of use is critical in an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias have plenty of lists when comparison between items is appropriate. I agree that categories would be better for many things on wikipedia, but not for comparisons like the ones you have nominated. bikeable (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • • He didn't say "irrelevant, he said "not at issue." Meaning "not disputed"--it's clearly a useful list. I'm torn--I worry about maintainability. That doesn't matter for fancruft, but it does for an article people might use to make decisions about things. On balance, though, it's a good article, well-presented, hard to see how else it could be done. So: Weak keep. · rodii · 03:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • (Not to belabor the point, but the edit summary said, "utility is irrelevant". bikeable (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC))
• Keep — Interesting information. Not suitable for categories. — RJH 17:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. How, exactly, could this information be replaced by a category? Table form works well here. Smerdis of Tlön 17:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge content into other, more encyclopedic articles. For example, Web browser#Brief history could be spun off into its own article, which would incorporate the browser release history table. Some of the other tables could (and probably should) be integrated into Web browser. There is a load of useful information there (much of which, based on a quick Googling, hasn't been aggregated anywhere else). --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a pretty good idea, actually. If the content can be verified and cleaned up, it could make a nice addition to another (more encyclopedic) article. —donhalcon^╤ 19:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, as the nom is making a WP:POINT (see his edit history). Also, per WP:NOT, structured lists are fine. This is not a "mere list." See also WP:LIST. I'm a huge fan of removing a bunch of software lists, but the comparsison articles are generally good (and, this one in particular, is fine). --Karnesky
• (Speedy) keep no compelling reason to delete. — Adrian Lamo ·· 19:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• speedy keep per WP:POINT. -- Andy Saunders 20:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:POINT deals with users performing an action for the purpose of having some similar action criticized or banned. I, however, actually don't think that these articles belong in an encyclopedia. Expressing that view through the proper channels isn't even close to being included in WP:POINT. —donhalcon^╤ 20:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that this single nomination would not WP:POINT, but you also {{prod}}ed and re-{{prod}}ed another 70 "Comparison..." articles today, and that has the appearance of a major (unilateral) policy shift. Before nominating dozens of pages for deletion under your own theories of list-appropriateness, perhaps you should look for consensus? I'd start with Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. bikeable (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The re-prod was a result of a misunderstanding on my part and was not intended maliciously (see my talk page). Centralized discussion has also been suggested to me by others and I will look into it. —donhalcon^╤ 21:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the appropriate information to each browser's article. That way, the information is accessible in relevant articles. One could simply utilize each browser's information into its own series of tables in each article. -- ProfMoriarty 20:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Special:Contributions/ProfMoriarty --Karnesky 05:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Qutezuce 21:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a pretty good article. Comparison articles are fine as long as they are verifiable. Rhobite 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as long as this is being kept up to date, this is useful information and very structured. -- Mithent 22:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as useful information providing it is kept up-to-date. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It needs considerable improvement to be of an encyclopediac nature though. At the moment it is a collection of information. The table format should be removed where possible. --Midnighttonight 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and keep up to date as well.  :) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep See WP:POINT - donhalcon has a thing against comparisons. It also appears that if you read donhalcon's userpage, he has given up on his campain against comparisons and decided to leave Wikipedia altogether. Perhaps it would be worth reverting the proposal to delete? --ZacBowling 02:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Like other comparison pages with a similar format, this information is useful. -- Markus24 03:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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.