Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of JavaScript engines

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 delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of JavaScript engines

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It's a technology article that hasn't been significantly improved since 2007 when it was created (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_JavaScript_engines&diff=151547395&oldid=149512033). All functions and objects in the article are from before ECMAScript (2009) and any JS engine, that implements ECMAScript (all that are being used are ECMAScript engines), implements all of them. Comparing them is pointless. Listing all the standard functions is not the topic of the article. The current version of ECMAScript is 13, the table in the article goes up to 6. — Updatepedia (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure data lacking context; we have https://caniuse.com. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a "simple listing" that is specifically mentioned under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As Enterprisey said, it has no context and is painfully out-of-date (which is itself an admittedly surmountable problem, if that was the only problem). Things like "Implementation of global objects" are such hyper-specific levels of minutiae that are WP:UNDUE when looking at the reliable sources that could be used surrounding those details. What little there is that could be argued is WP:DUE in some way would easily fit on a simple table on a more appropriate article rather than having a standalone article, and I don't even think putting a table somewhere else is appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2022 (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.