Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of web browser engines (typography support)

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 was no consensus with no prejudice against an early re-nomination. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of web browser engines (typography support)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small article, with half of the info already covered in the large CSS comparison article. The other half is minor, niche considerations that haven't had a meaningful update in over 7 years. -Pmffl (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have too many non-encyclopedic articles about technical details and this one is also redundant. wikitigresito (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been relisted per the latest deletion review (diff) pending further consensus. @RoySmith, Excelsiorsbanjo, Sandstein, Hobit, Reyk, SportingFlyer, Godsy, DGG, and Stifle:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC); updated 16:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Why have you only pinged those three people? If you want to notify the DRV participants you should notify all of them. Hut 8.5 20:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - All pinged Hut 8.5. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify this article is very out of date and hasn't been properly updated in seven years (which is a long time in web development). This can be seen by comparing the article against Comparison of browser engines (CSS support), which has a duplicate of the first section which has been kept up to date. The two are very different because browsers have improved support for the various features since 2011 and one major browser isn't listed at all because it didn't exist back then. If the rest of the article is similarly out of date then it's misleading the readers. It should be moved to draft space until someone can check the whole thing for accuracy and update as necessary. Hut 8.5 20:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and move: if you want these types of comparisons deleted, nominate everything in Category:Browser engine comparisons. (Yes, I'm blatantly invoking WP:OSE here, because this is ridiculous.) This page should be renamed to drop the "web" part, given the rest of that category. Modernponderer (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix' There's no reason to dratify anarticle in order to add and update information, Draftification is needed when the article needs reorganization, or has fundamental problems, especially when there is doubt that it can ever be improved to be acceptable. Draftification has significant overhead, and is unnecessary for the sort of changes needed here . As for whether it would anyway be suited for eletion, see the argument just above. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: any tidbits of info still useful should be added to the web typography article in its File formats section. There's not much to move there, though, since these tables are sparse and dated. (Of the 4 engines listed, only 2 are still active. That's why I nominated this clunker of an article for deletion in the first place. I didn't think to just merge it into the other article back then, so that would be a better resolution.) -Pmffl (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And that article that has linked to this one for the past 8+ years and still does isn't dated? Why're you voting for delete when you are saying a merge would be more appropriate? Merges do not require deletion. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I incorrectly used the 'delete' label when I should've stated 'merge'. I've now corrected it. -Pmffl (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but encourage merging. "Small" is a very poor reason to delete, especially when there is an overlapping article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the related articles. Tag the material as needing an update, as appropriate. The CSS section should go to Comparison of browser engines (CSS support), the rest to Web typography#File formats. This is basically a WP:CONTENTFORK. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI - I changed mine to 'merge' above, since I proposed the same solution but had incorrectly labelled it 'delete'. So we're on the same page here. -Pmffl (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should keep this article, as it contains information present nowhere else. Updating and/or merging doesn't require deletion, and should at any rate take place before deletion. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:LISTN because there's significant coverage of browser support for typography features as a group or set (as seen on Ars Technica and CNET). The content of this page doesn't fit into any of the other "Comparison of browser engines" pages, because typography is distinct from HTML, CSS, and graphics. This article should immediately be moved to Comparison of browser engines (typography support) to match the naming convention of the other comparison pages, and also added to Template:Browser engines. — Newslinger talk 12:45, 20 July 2018 (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.