Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of early HTML editors

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 merge to Comparison of HTML editors. Sourced information should be merged across; the rest, as per the discussion, should not. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of early HTML editors[edit]

(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]

Let's start sourcing, then! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eep, no no no. Adding references to non-notable bits of software mentioned in the list is absolutely not the route to take. Only three items in the list have articles (or a section thereof). The rest need to go. — Scott • talk 22:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article isn't technically titled as being a standalone list, it seems that it can be considered one. Therefore, per WP:LISTN, items which don't have independent notability can still be included, as the list doesn't seem to be unmanageably large. What I'm starting to do is verify some of the information (I accept that the sources I found don't seem to help much with verifying the contents of the column comparison info but it's a starting point). What do you think? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 22:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it might be clearer to have it as a separate article, but it could alternatively be combined. The one thing that should not be done is to have it deleted. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V as mostly unsourced contested content, or failing that merge to Comparison of HTML editors. No indication that this particular collation of data has been the subject of coverage by reliable sources, as required by WP:GNG. Sandstein 10:40, 30 December 2013 (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.