Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JXtension


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

JXtension

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Prod was contested in an edit that saw the Features section expanded. Software with no assertion of independent coverage by reliable third-party references. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 20:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I first encountered mention of JXtension when Joe Smith posted a bit about it on this article at Smashing Magazine. It seems that the developer is currently working on improving JXtension and also using Sizzle in order to make it usable for all developers. In addition, JXtension seems to provide a lot of functionality that is missing from other JavaScript libraries, such as the specialized color functions, concatenating functions, using the map function, etc. As of right now, I am not going to say that I am an expert in JXtension but it does seem to be a great way to make add dynamic content to your site without having to use jQuery which is considerably larger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendingsender1 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But that does not address the central issue of this discussion. The reference you posted from Smashing Magazine is more like a catalog than anything else, so it asserts nothing more than the existence of this software package. What we are seeking here is whether it currently meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline or any other relevant notability guideline, that is, has jXtension been the subject of devoted articles in reliable sources independent of its developpers? --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insuficient coverage. One mention in an article about something else is not enough. Pcap ping  09:19, 5 February 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.