Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dojo Toolkit (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. Nobody other than the nominator is in favour of deletion. Michig (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dojo Toolkit

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-published or trivial references. I can't find any material to support WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As well as the previous AfD discussion from 2006, there are publications such as an O'Reilly book on Dojo and accompanying coverage. Though there is little apparent press coverage of Dojo in the past 4 years, notability is not temporary and I would stay with the previous AfD decision. AllyD (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of good amount of secondary source coverage, and also notability is not temporary. — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there are secondary sources, they should be added to the article. If the AfD fails and no sources are present with a week of its closing, I will redirect it somewhere. It makes no sense to have article of this low quality for apparently non-notable subjects. As for "temporary notability", the last AfD was not closed as keep because it was found to be notable, rather it was found to be discussed by "the Web2.0 crowd" when discussing "Ajax/JavaScript toolkits". There was never a discussion about notability, which is now the standard for AfDs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 3 points:
- WP:Notability (software)#Nominating for deletion: "Before nominating an unsourced article for deletion, make sure to verify that it is non-notable, not just missing citations. One way to do this is to perform a Google books, Google news, or Google scholar search"
  - There are many books about Dojo, or where Dojo is mentioned or recommended. see here or here.
  - For now Dojo is still included in the Google Hosted Libraries, which hosts "most popular, open-source JavaScript libraries" according to Google.
- WP:NOTTEMPORARY: Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. (see also WP:Recentism)
  - Our previous AfD was in 2006. Dojo has actually been more notable since then. I think it reached its acme in 2008 or 2009. Despite it may (or may not?) be less used now comparing to 2008 and 2009, it may still have its little place in history.
- WP:MUST: "cleanup of articles in bad quality shouldn't be done through a deletion discussion but at the article's talk page." Also, WP:NRVE: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article."
  - So I don't think deletion or merger is good, if the notability is proved in our discussion and the AfD fails, but someone still think there's not enough sources added in this article. In that case, feel free to use {{Third-party}}, {{Primary sources}} or {{Cleanup}}, and let other editors do these things. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply three points:

Literacy is required. Nom states "I can't find any material to support WP:GNG or other notability guidelines"

Literacy is required. The previous nomination did not discuss notability. A point I made before and you didn't seem to read that either.

Cleaning is not required since there are no source to support notability and you didn't provide any. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By following WP:Notability (software)#Nominating for deletion and performing a Google books search, I found really a lot of materials to support Notability Guidelines, and I provided this link, this link and Google Hosted Libraries' link, they are just not added in the article, but they exist. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dojo Toolkit: "The name comes up often when...", "widely considered one of the top 3 or 4 Javascript toolkits", "relatively well known", "Dojo is notable and has recived backing from industry giants".. Well I don't think they did not talk about "notability". Please explain why you think otherwise. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what I meant is, even if in 2006 it was not notable enough, it was in 2008 or 2009, and thus it should not be deleted. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I think Walter misunderstand "Notability". Notability among "the Web2.0 crowd", or Notability as a "Ajax/JavaScript toolkit", is still "Notability", which indicates its notability in JavaScript and web development history or something like that. You can't say notability in web development history is not notability. WP:Notability (software)#Inclusion: "Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field..." --Tomchen1989 (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another important point to add: I thought there was no proof of notability in the article, I was wrong. In Dojo Toolkit#Further reading section, so many third party published books are provided there, making it perfectly meet WP:Notability (software)#Inclusion: "Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books..." I think the notability is pretty obvious and actually thought about voting "Speedy Keep", I don't get why Walter described it as "apparently non-notable subject". --Tomchen1989 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.