Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of XML

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 Move. Moved to Comparison of data serialization formats SilkTork *^YES! 14:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of XML

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

Merge: Content fork of XML (WP:CFORK) Abc518 (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This (never-ending) list of critics was in the XML main article. It is not a fork but a spinout because I removed the content in the main article to create this one (and linked). The reason for the removal of the list from the XML main article is explained here: Talk:XML#Rewriting. In short, this list bloats the main article (which is already very long). Hervegirod (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly doesn't make the article look any less crappy, Spinning this off was at best a bandaid for XML, which really needs to be rewritten. --Abc518 (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just look at TCP it's actually larger, and looks alot better. --Abc518 (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I see, XML is currently rewritten (not by me). One proposal was to remove this list from the XML article because it added no information and only confused the reader. I have no problem about deleting entirely this section from the article. However there are no Criticism sections in TCP. Hervegirod (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just don't see the need for a Criticism of page for this, you'll notice most end off redirected. [1]
- It's pretty clear that this rambling, arm-wavy opinion piece doesn't belong in the XML article, so I am definitely against Merge. Another option might be to put in a new entry, rather than just pro/con XML, comparing it to real-world alternatives like ASN.1, YAML, and JSON, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. But to be honest, I could live with just deleting it. Tim Bray (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - possibly the references may be useful for something? The article itself is, however, too much of a mess to save. Artw (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - this is just a couple of bullet lists of un-encyclopedic points! Why should it be on Wikipedia? Bossk-Office (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content fork. These forks are made when the forked material is removed from the main article. They are the result of an editing dispute, not of a valid encyclopedia topic. Abductive (reasoning) 18:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Comparison of data serialization formats. The Pro/Cons which have references would be a very useful start for the page. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I promise to do some work on that proposed Comparison article if someone makes a start on it Tim Bray (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move: per the two previous answers, I change my previous answer and recognize that a Comparison of data serialization formats article, integrating what can be salvaged from the current list, would be more useful to my current "Criticism of XML" proposal. Hervegirod (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as spinout or merge back in. Hobit (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Artw that this is too much of a mess to save. Walk Up Trees (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2009 (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.