Node.js wikipedia entry marked for deletion for not being notable(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
Node.js wikipedia entry marked for deletion for not being notable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Node.js
33 comments
I am not sure about being notable but it definitely does not read as informative in the sense for general knowledge (as said in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Node.js).
It reads as a README file to get me started with Node.js which looks very similar to the original
http://nodejs.org/
So a bit more effort may need to go into making this useful for public knowledge. (The Community section is not needed in my opinion) This is just my idea based on how the jQuery wiki page was organized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jquery
Notice how it actually explains the examples in more than one line. Again this is all observation.
It reads as a README file to get me started with Node.js which looks very similar to the original
http://nodejs.org/
So a bit more effort may need to go into making this useful for public knowledge. (The Community section is not needed in my opinion) This is just my idea based on how the jQuery wiki page was organized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jquery
Notice how it actually explains the examples in more than one line. Again this is all observation.
Is it notable, though? Serious question.
I mean, Twisted and Tornado have actual references. (Eventmachine does not, but whatever.)
Node currently has two, one of which is a linkbait-y post on readwriteweb, the other is an extremely meager wiki template page. Ergo, it isn't notable.
I mean, Twisted and Tornado have actual references. (Eventmachine does not, but whatever.)
Node currently has two, one of which is a linkbait-y post on readwriteweb, the other is an extremely meager wiki template page. Ergo, it isn't notable.
In the wikipedia notability guideline sense, of course - if you don't like it, add references.
I mean, the page about the villain from Sonic the Hedgehog ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Eggman) has 47 references.
I mean, the page about the villain from Sonic the Hedgehog ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Eggman) has 47 references.
What a great article. I read your reply and I thought, this is clearly a case of fortification against deletion ("Doctor Eggman doth protest too much").
But then, after a look at the article, it's clear that you can't make a good case for deletion after all. There's a lot of info there, a lot of deep cross-links, etc.
But then, after a look at the article, it's clear that you can't make a good case for deletion after all. There's a lot of info there, a lot of deep cross-links, etc.
Wikipedia has a lot of surface area. Another favorite example of mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_fish_on_stamp...
I'm not sure deleting stubs really gains much (http://forre.st/storage --> "here's a nickel, go buy another gigabyte"), but adding sources really does improve articles. There's concrete info about node.js that people can cite (and the less hype-ish, the better).
I'm not sure deleting stubs really gains much (http://forre.st/storage --> "here's a nickel, go buy another gigabyte"), but adding sources really does improve articles. There's concrete info about node.js that people can cite (and the less hype-ish, the better).
I tried to add information about how Node.js is now part of the webOS SDK, but then it complained that someone else was now editing it.
And there was the first time I've ever tried to edit a Wikipedia page.
And there was the first time I've ever tried to edit a Wikipedia page.
[deleted](1)
125 job offers for Node.js on Indeed.com, doesn't that make it somewhat notable? http://www.indeed.com/q-Node.js-l-United-States-jobs.html
What was cited in the Wikipedia article? That's what helps the article meet the standards of an encyclopedia, having references to reliable sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
I think you mean: "125 jobs that mention node.js anywhere in the description."
any of you noticed that there was an entry citing that node.js is a "useless event-driven I/O framework" ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Node.js&oldid=...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Node.js&oldid=...
saw that, looks like it is fixed now
it's funny. because I was actually viewing the wiki page before I saw this post. Had it open in another tab, and when I went back to it to read it I found the little surprise left by some troll.
Let's not go nuts about this, OK?
Like it or not, Wikipedia is the web's jumping-off point for serious knowledge about a given subject, especially technical subjects, and having citations in the article gives people reasonable places to jump off to.
So don't spam the deletion discussion. Add good citations and references instead.
Like it or not, Wikipedia is the web's jumping-off point for serious knowledge about a given subject, especially technical subjects, and having citations in the article gives people reasonable places to jump off to.
So don't spam the deletion discussion. Add good citations and references instead.
I don't advocate going nuts about it, but Wikipedia's deletion policies often lead to the permanent removal of interesting topics.
There are things that I have learned from Wikipedia that no one else will ever be able to read - because some arbitrary decision maker decided it wasn't important. That's what frustrates people.
There are things that I have learned from Wikipedia that no one else will ever be able to read - because some arbitrary decision maker decided it wasn't important. That's what frustrates people.
> (...) but Wikipedia's deletion policies often lead to the permanent removal of interesting topics.
Quite the opposite, in my experience. The policies are reasonable and help the content stay. However, they are subject to interpretation -- and some experienced users that prefer deletionism (``deletionists'') -- are able to game the system and get some content removed pretty much in spite of policies (at least its spirit).
Quite the opposite, in my experience. The policies are reasonable and help the content stay. However, they are subject to interpretation -- and some experienced users that prefer deletionism (``deletionists'') -- are able to game the system and get some content removed pretty much in spite of policies (at least its spirit).
Name the articles. If they are useful I am quite happy to rework them into something salvageable.
In most of the cases what is deleted has no real content, but a year or so later someone will recreate the article well, probably not knowing it had been deleyed.
In most of the cases what is deleted has no real content, but a year or so later someone will recreate the article well, probably not knowing it had been deleyed.
[deleted]
And then there was the day that the HN and the Wiki communities clashed.
No witch-hunts please. Put your pitchforks and torches down. Let's finish this like gentlemen; find real citations and references to add to the page as nbpoole suggests.
[deleted]
I don't see why any of those articles should be deleted.
Wikipedia can be a complex, and confusing place. I've edited several articles, and I still don't get their culture....
[deleted]
[deleted](2)
Let's not jump the gun and start pointing fingers. Wikipedia is a hard beast to manage and we have to assume the moderator acted in good faith.
The article in question has a single external reference: a page on the CommonJS wiki which basically just says that NodeJS exists. Add some real citations to the article and the issue goes away.
Edit: Some anonymous user removed the notice. Here's the old version of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Node.js&oldid=...
Also, notice the sentences "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason" and "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." in the original warning.