Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcor Netflix (JavaScript library)


 * 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.  Sandstein  22:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Falcor Netflix (JavaScript library)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have searched extensively, and failed to finds any evidence that this subject comes near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I found a download site which stores Netflix Falcor, blog posts, a page asking for help in developing Netflix Falcor, a page on a website which exists to publicise "Internet-based application programming interfaces", Twitter, YouTube, etc, but nothing like the sort of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources needed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: The article was nominated for speedy deletion by Anarchyte, on the basis of speedy deletion criteria A7 (no indication of importance) and G11 (promotion). At first, I speedily deleted the article, but on reflection I think that was a mistake: although I agree that there is no indication of significance, it is not about a person, animal, organisation, web content, or an event, and so does not qualify for A7, and although the article seems to be intended to publicise the subject and encourage readers to regard it as useful, it is not so blatantly promotional as to justify a G11 deletion, so I have restored the article and brought it here for discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding to what : have said let me provide big picture of the Falcor.JS. The library is non-profit, open-source project. It has 1700 commits (and a lots of lines of code) to it's GH repo: https://github.com/Netflix/falcor/commits/master, the library is in production on the Netflix's main website and the developers from netflix has open-sourced that library last year. From my perspective, I have googled and didn't find any wikipedia entry on that topic so I added one few days ago. The Falcor Netlix is non-commerce open-source library. About myself: I am a javascript developer, this is my github profile -> https://github.com/przeor/ ... I am NOT ASSOCIATED with Netflix and I use the Falcor.js in my project. I think it may be useful covered this topic of open-source library on Wikipedia as I find this library very useful. Przeor1989 (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:GNG - I found these sources to show notability (,, , primary source), but only three of them are secondary. I'm not seeing enough to assert significant coverage (WP:TOOSOON?). For this reason, I don't believe that it meets WP:GNG. If there are others I missed, or if there's enough others that show significant coverage, please let me know.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Too soon page you can read: "A good example of this is Paris Jackson, as seen at this Articles for Deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Katherine Jackson. At the time of the discussion, she had been announced as the star of a film that would be released a year after - however, the film had not actually been released yet. If or when the film is released, and if Jackson is the star of the film, she likely will merit an article, but not until then." This example says, that the film wasn't been released, PLEASE NOTICE that Falcor is over 2 years old, and the Falcor was released in June 2016 - it doesn't look for me too soon (as on the example on Too Soon), as more and more people will use this technology in their javascript's projects (like me) Przeor1989 (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Przeor1989 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * June 2016 hasn't happened yet :-P  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, but humor aside, It's too soon because significant coverage hasn't yet occurred. It doesn't matter how old something is, or when it was released. That's what WP:TOOSOON can also mean.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ;-P I meant June 2015. Generally speaking, that Library has 5489 stars on GitHub (https://github.com/Netflix/falcor/stargazers) and 3345 followers on Twitter (https://twitter.com/falcorjs) so in my eyes, this is quite popular library in comparison to other existing one. For more stats, the Netflix Falcor library is one of the top most 70 popular libraries on GitHub (it's huge) - source of how many libraries/repos there are on github with over 5400 stars: https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=javascript+language%3AJavaScript+stars%3A%3E5400+language%3AJavaScript&type=Repositories&ref=advsearch&l=JavaScript&l=JavaScript Przeor1989 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

My summary shows that this article shall be recovered and saved on the Wiki.

The story, short: 1) my mistake was that I did copyrights mistake which was edited in 30 minutes from releasing initial writing 2) Before I corrected the article, it has been nominated to speedy deletion and deleted by  3) After a discussion on   discussion page, he reversed the deletion 4) We are on that topic now for "Articles deletion" because all articles recovered from deletion have to be discussed by wider community

In that deletion's discussion we have proved that: a) The article has the notability (check above) b) The article's topic is mature and NOT too soon (this library is almost 3 years old and also please check that above the Falcor's library is in "100 top most popular" on GitHub - please remember that there are over 100 000 javascript libraries and this Netflix Falcor library is in top one hundred !!!)

Hope it helps.

Regards, Kamil :-) Przeor1989 (talk) Przeor1989 (talk) 09:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you pinged me in your post above, I have come back and read what you have written here since I last posted. You say "we have proved that ... The article has the notability", but I don't see where you have done that. I see only that you have made assertions such as that the subject is a "non-profit, open-source project", that it is"almost 3 years old", that it is "popular", that it has many "followers" on Twitter and so on, none of which has any bearing whatever on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I still see no source that anyone has provided that indicates notability in the terms of Wikipedia's guidelines.


 * You seem to have misunderstood the essay "Wikipedia:Too soon". The essential point of that essay is that a subject is not notable because it may at some time in the future come to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines if it hasn't done so yet, not that an article becomes notable if it has been around for some time. There are sometimes subjects which only came into existence yesterday, but which have already received enough coverage to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and others which came into existence many years ago, but which have not. "It's been around for nearly three years" is not evidence of notability, nor would "it's been around for twenty years" be. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show this meets WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, per the reasons stated above. There's really nothing else I can add to this discussion; this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards, especially in the case of notability. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 01:53, 9 March 2016 (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.