Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of early HTML editors

Comparison of early HTML editors

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; there's no need for this table of features of long-forgotten and unnotable software. — Scott • talk 00:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I'm not sure the list is indiscriminate, I feel that these comparison tables are almost invariably original research (WP:SYNTHESIS). Additionally, this list has a vague inclusion criteria: what does "early" mean? Pburka (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely subjective article based on original research. Borders on indiscriminate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Comparison of HTML editors, allowing sources to be located and added. Another possible home (at some point in the future) could be within a more comprehensive WP:SPINOUT article entitled History of the HTML editor or similar. -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 12:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Potential COI declaration: Now looking at the article history I see that the article creator has previously collaborated with me at Commons:Bots/Requests/Smallbot. I'd not noticed this before I !voted above, and it's not influenced my opinion.) -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 12:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a conflict of interest. You don't have to disclose that. Most of us have interacted with each other before. There are only so many active editors on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Yes, it's not an external COI but I thought it still worth noting as an internal one. If my !vote had been an uncomplicated provision of sources demonstrating notability (for example) then I wouldn't have felt the need. As it is, it seemed worth noting - and yes I did think twice before saving the comments and decided "why not?" Cheers. -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 22:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. whether content works better elsewhere, i have no opinion on, but i don't see information as "indiscriminate", and the fact that it doesn't tell people what browser they should use in 2013 doesn't mean the history of prior browsers should simply be deleted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Comparison of HTML editors, and as per User:Trevj's !vote above, then allow sources to be located and added to verify content. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from originator: I have no objection to a merge of any material in the list relating to notable software (ie that has an article). Most of it doesn't appear to be. — Scott • talk 14:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]