Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JSLint


 * 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   keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

JSLint

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod, removed by anon IP. Non-notable product; fails WP:N, WP:RS. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Google books lists many sources that talk about JSLint fairly extensively (e.g. whole appendices or chapters).  This stub was tagged far too aggressively.  There is no reason to PROD something that is not spam the same day it is created!  Nominator does not mention any attempt to look for source material & would be well-advised to use the cleanup templates, so as to not bite newcomers/let stubs grow.  --Karnesky (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you expand the article to work in the significance in such contexts, because I'd support retention of this article if some grounds of interest could be outlined? Ian ¹³  /t  22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would JSLint be any less notable than all those other tools for static code analysis? Unlike other tools (for other languages) it's even suitable for automated tests. Anyone who writes JavaScript for a living has heard of it or uses it all the time. It's also available as plugin for many text editors and IDEs. Randomly proposing articles for deletion just because you haven't heard of it really isn't the way Wikipedia should be. 78.51.86.141 (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I didn't nominate the article because I haven't heard of JSLint; I nominated it because the article is one sentence long and doesn't assert its notability. Also, just because there are other articles has no bearing on this one. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Papers such as M. Doernhoefer, ACM 2006 31 4 16-24 lead me to believe an article could be built up around this topic outlining its significance. Ian ¹³  /t  22:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a a static code analysis tool used in software development for checking if a JavaScript source code complies with coding rules.  This seems to be a bit too granular. Possibly worth a mention in a general article on "static code analysis" or JavaScript debugging, but I don't see this tool as meriting a separate article, especially if there are others performing a similar function. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * I agree with Smerdis on the substance of his argument (too granular as is, but worth a mention in a more general article). I disagree with his recommendation of "delete" because if it's worth a mention in a more general article, then it's also worth a redirect to that article. Since we can redirect instead of deleting, then deletion is avoidable.  Per WP:BEFORE, if we can avoid deletion, then we should.  QED.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  11:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Smerdis of Tlön.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 20:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per many published sources given. LotLE × talk  02:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I added 3 references: M. Doernhoefer, ACM 2006 31 4 16-24 (paywall) to the article; it has a half-page, with screenshot, and sections from 2 books found via Amazon Search Inside, including the appendix of one O'Reilly book. Please add further WP:RS. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are book chapters about this, as pointed out above. Pcap ping  22:21, 17 March 2010 (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.