- Comparison of web browser engines (typography support) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The deletion log refers to two people's assertions which are inaccurate:
"…half of the info already covered in the large CSS comparison article…"
- How about the other half? The information I have referred to this page for across many years certainly is not present in another article. I looked.
"…haven't had a meaningful update in over 7 years."
- Web typography has not changed significantly in many years, so why would information referring to it need to.
"…this one is also redundant…"
- Again, the information in the article is not present in any other, and is therefore not redundant.
Deleting admin said "Sorry, the discussion is over now, and I‘m not interested enough in the topic to pursue this further.".
Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably reasonable to treat this as WP:SOFTDELETE given the participation. So I'm leaning toward restore on that basis but soft deletion isn't something I see a lot of and would like to hear from others who deal with this in practice before formally !voting. Hobit (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As a part of that, none of the deletion arguments seem particularly on-point. They don't address notability and redundancy is generally better addressed with a redirect or talk-page discussion. Hobit (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore to draft given the low participation in the AfD treating it as a soft deletion is reasonable, however the fact that the article is badly out of date is a substantial concern and I think that if restored it should be draftified so updates can be made. Even if web typography doesn't change often browsers certainly do. For example Google Chrome, the most popular browser, has used the Blink engine since 2013. Blink isn't covered at all, presumably because the list was written before Chrome used it. (Blink is a fork of Webkit, which was covered, however I'm sure Google have done something with it in the last five years.) Several features for Mozilla are listed as "experimental" cited to bug reports which were filed up to a decade ago and have been closed for years. The AfD nomination was right that about half of the content (the part relating to CSS) is also present in Comparison of browser engines (CSS support). Hut 8.5 06:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate this argument, even though things that were supported by WebKit as used by Google Chrome will for the most part still be supported by Blink, making the information still useful. As to this argument, though, I'm not really sure why it's worth expending effort to delete an article but not to make incremental updates to it instead. To me the latter is more in line with the purpose of this website. That said I've no particular problem with merging at the very least what I now miss into the larger article, but I would prefer if things that are not present elsewhere are merged into elsewhere before they are deleted forever. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The first half of the deleted article has information which is also found in Comparison of browser engines (CSS support), except that the deleted article is obviously badly out of date. Numerous features in the table in question are listed as experimental in the deleted article and supported in the visible article, or not supported in the deleted article and supported or experimental in the visible article. If the rest of the article is as out of date as that then it's very misleading. To quote Jimbo, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". The deleted article hadn't had many updates since 2011, and seven years is a long time in web development. I'm not saying we shouldn't have an article on this topic, but it will need to be at least vaguely current to be of any benefit to our readers. Hut 8.5 18:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see the article (it's deleted, it isn't present on archive.org, etc.), but from memory of years of use as reference and 3rd party copies there is plenty of relevant information that is not present in Comparison of browser engines (CSS support). There is not, for example, information on font formats support. Again, this support has changed incredibly little in many years. I also appreciate that quote, but AIUI it was in reference to uncited information, not cited, still-relevant, slightly in need of updating information. Seven years is a long time in web development, but for certain things (including web typography), web development has always moved very slowly (in this case it moved very slowly for many years, had a swift spike in activity, and immediately again began to plateau). Mostly, though, it's just harder to make it more current without it being present, and I for one feel that deleting something and then trying to add it again to somewhere else because it's useful information is backwards. We should merge first, then delete, or simply redirect, etc.. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see from my comment above I am not opposed to Wikipedia having an article on this topic, I am merely asking that the page be moved to draft space so it can be brought up to date (or at least verified that the information has not changed in the last seven years). An article which presents plenty inaccurate information to the reader is extremely harmful and much worse than not having an article on the topic at all. If we don't have an article then someone looking for that content would at least look elsewhere and hopefully find something better. Again I'm not saying this article just has to stay deleted, only that someone needs to put the effort into updating it before it goes back into mainspace. Hut 8.5 18:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion- based on the participation at the AfD I don't see this as an unreasonable close. Seems to me to be a toss-up between hard and soft deletion, so I'd have no objection to restoring it to draft space. As long as some effort is made to bring it up to date because, as Hut 8.5 points out, the antiquity of the content actually makes it misleading. Reyk YO! 07:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Every page on the internet is out of date (except for the deleted ones which are even less useful) IMO, but again I do appreciate this concern myself, and could do a brush up if it's restored. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The title isn't a plausible search term so there's no point in redirecting unless it's to preserve the edit history for something. Half of this page is already present in your suggested target and the remainder is out of scope for the target article as it doesn't involve CSS. Closing as merge or redirect without anybody in the AfD even suggesting the possibility would also be a supervote. Hut 8.5 06:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah maybe. I guess I mean “relist” and I think I’d have !voted “redirect”. Keep the history and let the details get sorted on the target talk page, though possibly nothing to sort in the end. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're referring to the font format support when you say out of scope, I'd say that is a strangely fine distinction you are making, as that is all actuated via CSS, which even has concessions for specifying format. If you aren't referring to the font format support, then I'm afraid you are merely wrong, as that information is both not present in the other article, not out of scope, & not irrelevant. Even if everyone agreed it was out of scope for an article on CSS (I don't know how that could ever happen reasonably, but let's just say for argument's sake), it would still be useful information that should, as it has been in the past (on articles with various titles, IIRC), be included somewhere. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAICT the scope of Comparison of browser engines (CSS support) is features which are defined in CSS specifications. This looks to me like a reasonable definition of what is CSS and what isn't. That page is already very long so I don't think we should be trying to make it longer by expanding the scope. As you can see from the above I'm not opposed to Wikipedia having a standalone page on this topic, I just don't think that the AfD becomes invalid because the participants didn't merge or redirect it. Hut 8.5 18:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. minimal discussion t' considering the deletion rationale, . I would myself have certainly relisted in a situation like this if a good faith editor were to ask me.; I recognize I make errors. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist, deletion process was not correctly followed in that there was insufficient discussion at the AFD to generate consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. The close was marginal. I probably would have relisted this instead of closing it, or at least closed it as WP:SOFTDELETE. But, more than that, this response to a query was inappropriate. It's one thing to stand by your decision and explain why, but to just blow off an enquiry by saying you're not interested in the topic is not up to the highest standards of WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT. Relisting seems like the best way forward, but I have no objection to restoring this to either mainspace or to draftspace, with the proviso that Excelsiorsbanjo commits to following through with the remedial work that's needed. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
