Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of web browsers (security)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep, no consensus between keep and merge --cesarb 2 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of web browsers (security)

Wikipedia is not a compilation of browser statistics from a security website. --W(t) 20:37, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC) I linked the wrong article in the heading, sorry about that. Fixed now. --W(t) 22:01, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

  • Keep, encylopedic comparison. Kappa 20:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) withdraw vote for the moment. Kappa 22:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, statistics are human knowledge, encyclopedic. Flayked 21:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a lovely, concise and useful article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The only column in the table that isn't already at Comparison of web browsers is the final one. I see no reason why this was made into a separate article, rather than simply being added to Comparison of web browsers ("uncorrected publically announced security vulnerabilities" falls under "general and technical information"). A break-out article that shouldn't have, and is the poorer for having done so. Merge. Uncle G 01:32, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
  • Either merge to comparison of web browsers or delete. --minghong 05:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is that in comparison of web browser are fare more browsers than which Secunia monitor. So either there will be some browsers (table rows) without security column or will be better to keep it on special page. --Ptomes 06:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That's not the problem that you make it out to be. Look at the way that Comparison of filesystems handles filesystems where no-one has yet obtained the data. Uncle G 09:06, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
        • OK. --Ptomes 09:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Comparison of web browsers (security) have been nominated for deletion. While it's an interesting compilation of information, somebody not sure it belongs in an encyclopædia.

I think that there is another interesting comparison, for example:

So I think this type of comparison should stay on Wikipedia, becouse they are interesting and important for many users. They also have relation with topic such as web browsers, security or critism of Microsoft for security of products. They are based on facts and reports from renowned and highly regarded security firm - Secunia and can bee anytime monitored and easily updated.

But I respect your opinion and I wait for result. I won't have been too disappointed and stick around though. --Ptomes 06:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC), creator of this comparison

  • Comparison of operating systems (security) is another one of your creations, and on Talk:Comparison of operating systems (security) editors have suggested exactly the same merger (to Comparison of operating systems as simply another section) as here. Uncle G 09:06, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
  • Mergify - per UncleG. Great effort and work, Ptomes - the Wiki spirit lives within. However, I disagree with your reasoning for not merging. If Secunia does not list these other browsers, that is not reason to disinclude them from listing them. Surely there are other sources that could be used - BugTraq, perhaps? --FCYTravis 06:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you think bugtraq.ru? I don't understand this language. :( I would like to cooperation with somebody on that. I try include Securityfocus but the problem is that this source doesn't update status of vulnerabilities (for example - fixed). I have not been found another useful source yet. I welcome any suggestions. But this is not problem. The problem is, what Wikipedians and Wikipedia users want. Do you want one another column in browser comparison page with information about vulnerabilities or do you want well aranged browser comparison of security, where anybody can see big diferences between browsers? I think exactly that is purpose of this table, but I said I will respect result of this discuss. --Ptomes 07:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The choice is not the dichotomy that you paint it as being. This table, minus the three columns duplicate columns, can be simply merged into Comparison of web browsers as another section. That way, you'll get the collaboration of other editors that you state you would like. Uncle G 09:06, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
        • OK, you conviced me. I agree with merge with Comparison of web browsers. --Ptomes 09:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to not have duplicate information that needs to be kept updated. Vegaswikian
  • Keep, this is a useful source of information that belongs in an encyclopedia. Would also accept a Merge. StuartH 23:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think in browser comparison are many obscure, non-modern, non-used and prehistoric browsers - pointlessly :( Now in this comparison is everything hardly finded. I think rather we should comparise actual, modern, well-knowen, latest vesions of browsers (IE 6.0, MF 1.0.x, O 8.x, N 8.x, K 3.4.x, S 2.x). Anything more is nonsense. Every (obscure, prehistoric and modern) browser on the world belong to the list of browsers, but no in this comparison, I think. --Ptomes 14:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Either merge into Comparison_of_web_browsers#Security (isn't that why that section already exists?) or split Comparison_of_web_browsers into seperate articles for each comparison (OS support, browser features, etc.) --taestell 14:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge It is informative and useful. But merge in Comparison of Web browsers article. Squash 30 June 2005 02:04 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.