Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easynode.js


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Easynode.js

 * – ( View AfD View log )

My original concern was, "Appears to be a non-notable JavaScript framework. Also failed to find enough reliable sources". However, author removed the PROD with the edit summary "I disagree with the deletion because the term "notable" is being applied to a new technology. If Wikipedia aims to provide useful information then it needs to accept that new technologies are of interest to those looking for the "right fit" tool." And no, I disagree with his point that new technologies are automatically notable. The more they need reliable sources to prove their notability if they are new technologies. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think my point has been slightly misunderstood, although there is very little space to type in the "Edit Summary" box, so it was probably not well made. I never suggested that new technologies should be considered "automatically noteable" - In fact, I agree that would be wrong. I am asking why a new technology needs to be considered noteable in the first place. If a technology is complete, documented, starting to be talked about in the developer community, and can be shown to be in good working order (such as samples offered) then does that not make it something worth being mentioned on Wikipedia? Otherwise, Wikipedia will always be playing catch-up, never providing information on the newest technologies and only informing people about "notable" established technologies. By all means check out the technolgoy and, if found to be unworthy of inclusion, then delete it. However, deleting it from Wikipedia just because it is new and not yet proven notable seems to be a little harsh. There will be developers looking for Node.js frameworks, and without these frameworks appearing in Wikipedia they will have to visit forums to find out about them. However, Wikipedia does not consider forum discussions regarding a product to make it "notable".mr_brian_osborne —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC).
 * I sort of understand your point, but as you can see, not every "new technology" can be included in Wikipedia. They must have some good reason why they should have an article. Such reasons can be seen on this page. Also, Wikipedia is not the place to share about new technologies, unless other reliable third-party sources have done so. Please see WP:V for more information. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yes, Wikipedia absolutely should "always be playing catch-up". It is a long-term history of things that have already demonstrated their importance. - Frankie1969 (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll accept your judgement on this. I think it would be a shame if it does not get listed in Wikipedia since node.js is a very hot topic currently and there is demand for information on frameworks for it. Even so, you are quite right, very few people would use Wikipedia to source new technologies, so if you decide to go ahead with the deletion then I doubt any developer would lose sleep over it not being included. Personally, I think I'd prefer Wikipedia to judge content by its usefulness rather than by how well established it seems. I'd certainly like to think that anything of interest (as long as factual and relevent) could be found on Wikipedia rather than relying on something like the Google search engine as a source of useful and up-to-date information. mr_brian_osborne —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a random collection of facts. Our readers who spend time reading our articles want to know that the subjects covered are worthy of note.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge into Node.js. Deletion is not a preferred alternative to redirection. —  C M B J   20:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We still need to demonstrate notability. We wouldn't redirect Papa Joe's Cafe, High Street, London to Café unless it's notable, and suitable for mention in Cafe.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't find sufficient sources to demonstrate notability.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: no coverage in reliable sources. Just another JS framework no one apart from JS developers would ever want to know about. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S.: after article deletion the redirect should be set up to point at node.js, as noted by Pontificalibus. Merging content about one software to the article about another software should be avoided though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I said the opposite. No redirect unless it's mentioned in the target article. I don't see any reason to mention this in node.js.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.