Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three.js (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 05:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Three.js
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Still non-notable. All refs about the library are first party, mostly to it's project page on github. Most of the refs are not about it, so fail the significant coverage aspect of the GNG, and are for a long 'uses' section which doesn't even belong. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 12:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Note: I am the author of much of the content of this entry - so I have a natural bias regarding the notability of Three.js. I am also a believer in the Wikipedia movement and paying supporter of Wikipedia. Thus whenever I have added or edited Wikipedia entries it is with the intention of fully adhering to Wikipedia guidelines. Having said that, I am also a newb in this process and have much to learn.


 * I also note that the entry very much needs an update. Much has happened in online 3D since the last significant edits to the entry. The Occulus Rift, Leap Motion and other virtual or augmented reality products have appeared on the market and Three.js continues to be the leading JavaScript library used to build the software demos for these devices. And I take this nomination for deletion as a heads-up that I should do some more work and get other people involved as well.


 * Regarding the current entry, there are 72 references. Three point to the primary source https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js. A few others point to other GitHub references. The majority of references are verifiable third party sources with content that incorporates significant mentions of Three.js.


 * I do agree agree with JohnBlackburne that the Uses section has issues. I built it up so as to try to help highlight where Three.js has been a significant asset in notable projects. I am sure that there are better ways of establishing notability.


 * But what are the key elements in identifying the notability of free, open source software libraries? Are there any available metrics or guidelines that could be useful - and acceptable to the Wikipedia community? Are there there third party statistics statistics of usage that are acceptable? Wikipedia is such a huge place, any help in locating such resources for online software would be really useful.


 * Of course, I feel that Three.js is notable - and so do some thousands of others https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/stargazers. But, perhaps JohnBlackburne has a valid point and there are better places for Wikipedia resources to be used. And, I hope that I am just as committed as JohnBlackburne is to helping Wikipedia figure this entry out - and thus help build standards that the whole free open source software movement can learn from... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoA (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The General Notability Guideline describes what is needed for notability on Wikipedia. There are no separate policies for free software. If you feel any of the references satisfy the requirement it would be helpful if you identify them; currently there are far too many to check, but the main ones to github are not reliable sources, while the rest all seem to be on other topics, not on the library.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete All of the references are to Github or client websites. This is a total affront to Wikipedia standards. The article as it stands is unreliable and if the subject is notable a completely different article is needed. Shii (tock) 19:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There are books devoted to the topic, such as Learning Three.js: The JavaScript 3D Library for WebGL and Game Development with Three.js and books which use the lib extensively throughout the text, such as WebGL: Up and Running. The first two books are published by Packt and the third is published by O'Reilly, both reputable publishers. The article lists other books in the Bibliography, but I have not checked those. There are enough multiple in-depth RS to pass notability. The article itself is somewhat promotional, for instance, the "Selected Uses and Works" section is basically an ad for how widely it is used and could be cut back to just notable entries (those with WP articles themselves) and a couple of examples. But removing promotional content is a surmountable problem, per, WP:SURMOUNTABLE; there is no need to blow it up per WP:TNT. A notable topic and surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article does need to perhaps start with some notable sources, however the topic itself does pass WP:GNG. In addition to the books mentioned above there are also Addison-Wesley published Learning HTML5 Game Programming: A Hands-on Guide to Building Online Games and Apress published Beginning WebGL for HTML5 and in published papers:  with Online pdf which has a section on it -- Rescendent (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The delete arguments don't make sense.  The article has 70 references and six bibliography entries.  There is no evidence provided that any of these sources are unreliable.  Not only are there no Google web, Google book, and Google scholar searches to support the hypothesis that the topic is non-notable, the nominator states regarding the references in the article, "there are far too many to check".  wp:Notability has only one requirement, that the topic be "worthy of notice".  The key words in the WP:N nutshell are "attention" and "evidence".  Unscintillating (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Only want to highlight that I think this AfD was started because of my comment on the old AfD. 87.79.119.179 (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2014 (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.