Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of OpenXPS and PDF

Comparison of OpenXPS and PDF

Original research. While this article is well-sourced, those sources establish that specific facts in the article are true, but the comparison itself constitutes WP:SYNTH. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this comparison article is any different than:

Your reasoning for deleting this single article can be applied to most if not all articles in Category:Computing comparisons. Ghettoblaster (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that "Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia." (See: Wikipedia:These are not original research) Ghettoblaster (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fail to see how WP:SYNTH applies. The article merely puts two sets of features against each other and doesn't develop any conclusions of its own. — Rankiri (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The article is very poor quality and I have listed some of the problems on the Talk page. I can't think of an audience that would gain any value from reading the page as it stands. The technologies are too complex to be compared in a simple table. You can't do a comparison consisting of a Yes/No table unless the choice of what things to compare is uncontroversial and that is not the case here. The choice of row labels is very arbitrary and can lead to highly misleading impressions. (For example saying "alpha in color specification: OpenXPS yes PDF no" would give any reasonable reader the impression that PDF does not support vector transparency). Even if I had the time and inclination I am not sure I could write a good comparison article without crossing the line into Original Research. I am doubtful about the notability of the subject as well - who needs to compare these things, for what purpose? I could maybe support a totally rewritten page but am skeptical. Mrhsj (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No synthesis at all. It isn't making an conclusion, such as, that one is better than the other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soapbox : There is a clear need for website administrators or document publishers to understand the utility and limitations of the format they use for making their "information" available. I personally continue to get annoyed that information providing websites, either through intent or accident, use presentation formats that severely limit the usefulness of their end product. Anything that lets more people know tradeoffs- such as that pictures tend to detract from automated processing capabilities and pdf doesn't just automatically adapt from desktop to cell phones very well compared to formats that know about document structure- would be an important addition to Wiki. I personally get annoyed when I need to waste BW downloading fonts that may be embedded in a file when all I want is the numerical data for use with other people's data ( and reducing to text or a csv file is usually the best thing to do ). So, I would suggest if there are specific problems with this article to give them a lot of thought before removing or reducing it. The formats are notable, these do have factual attributes which can be listed ( in a text format LOL), and the tradeoffs compared for interested readers. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]