Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of layout engines (DOM)
Delete because this is an encyclopedia and you wouldn't find this in an encyclopedia.
Keep: It's true, useful information that various other articles may well link to. Pseudomonas 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This looks like a cut and past copyrite violation. Anyone know the source?Obina 18:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NOT a technical manual of niche software features. Sandstein 19:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT... not even an encyclopedia article per se. It appears to be WP:OR as well. It's not a C & P copyvio as far as I can tell.--Isotope23 20:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT. --Khoikhoi 03:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP - if one wants an encyclopedia one shall resort to britannica et al. Wikipedia will never resemble those, no matter how hard one individual tries. One can deduce the cause of this with simple logic. On the other hand the same reason enables it to have far greater virtues. :Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.:Slicky 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "If one wants an encyclopaedia" implies wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. The issue is not size limit or notability; the issue at hand is whether or not this is encyclopaedic. Please bear that in mind. Copyvio? --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 06:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Sandstein's comments above. --Hetar 08:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)