Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Outline of JavaScript

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. I wavered over a "no consensus" close, but frankly several of the delete arguments here seem to miss what is the purpose of an outline vs. a regular article, or what justifies deletion in draftspace vs. mainspace, so when those are given less weight there is more favoring the keep side. RL0919 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Outline of JavaScript (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Massive link collection that duplicates the article JavaScript. Part of a return to the outline project that was widely rejected years ago, after the editor pushing outlines screwed up portal space. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Neither appropriate for Wikipedia space nor draft space. Not related to improving the encyclopedia and not a draft. Also see Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless shadow article. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to JavaScript. This is not a missing topic, so it should not be allowed as a draft, but there is not actually a valid reason for deletion of the history. Per policy, WP:ATD, this page should be fixed by redirect to the mainspace article. Come back to MfD if there is a dispute, but stop abusing MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a viable search term. What the nom and Feezo says. ∯WBG^converse 14:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Winged Blades of Godric: "Outline of" is the standard title for this type of page (it's a hierarchical topics list). Outlines are not designed for search, but as browsing aids. They are like tables of contents for specific subjects. See Portal:Contents/Outlines.    — The Transhumanist   21:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TTH made many/most of the Outline of X pages. From what I have seen these creations were subject to a big cleanup years ago, though some still survive. They have not been well received by editors. Legacypac (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Lists are collections of links; that's their primary purpose. And outlines are lists. So, the nominator is proposing deletion on the basis that this page is a list. Lists, including outlines, are covered under Wikipedia's list guideline, and full-page lists, like this one, are covered under the guideline stand-alone lists.
  
  The scope of each outline goes beyond the coverage of the root article of the same name. Their scope is Wikipedia's coverage of the entire subject. After all, they are navigation pages, for navigating whole subjects. See Portal:Contents/Outlines.
  
  Outlines are typically far more comprehensive than the root article, because they are lists. So, this page does not duplicate the article, because 1) it is a topics list, and 2) its scope is JavaScript as covered by all of Wikipedia, like a table of contents. The best outlines have evolved into classified glossaries (classified = arranged by subject, rather than alphabetically), and include annotations to aid in topic selection for the browsing user.
  
  Outlines have been an accepted part of Wikipedia since the beginning of Wikipedia (though initially they had other titles, and some still do). If they were widely rejected as Legacypac claims, then the entire outline system wouldn't exist. In contrast to LP's claim, thousands of editors have worked on outlines, and millions of readers use them each year.
  
  Which brings us to whether or not this is a valid draft. Outlines are an accepted part of Wikipedia, being part of Wikipedia's contents system (which has a link on the main menu sidebar). It follows that JavaScript, a subject that has extensive coverage on Wikipedia, be included in the contents system with its own outline.    — The Transhumanist   21:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  
  
• Comment – I've posted a notice on the JavaScript WikiProject's talk page. Please relist this MfD to allow time for them to reply, as this page features prominently on that WikiProject's main page, and they may have constructive advice on how useful this page is to the encyclopedia and to the WikiProject. WikiProjects often maintain a topics list to help plan out which articles need editing, and to help see the gaps in subject coverage to aid in deciding what new articles to create, and so we should find out if the WikiProject needs this page for those purposes or not.    — The Transhumanist   22:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript/Outline of JavaScript. Note WP:DUD. Draftspace has not benefits for established Wikipedians, and even less for WikiProjects. Draftspace is holding pen for delaying inept spam from being put straight into mainspace. If the page is important to the WikiProject, it should be a subpage of the WikiProject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: (You !voted twice. Just a heads up).    — The Transhumanist   19:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Perfectly valid draft list, in the correct format for WP:OUTLINEs. There is no valid deletion rationale provided. I think someone simply doesn't know what an outline page is. Our outlines are very useful navigational aids providing an overview of everything we have on an entire broad topic area, and are much, much easier to use for this than our category system (which is really used more by editors for maintenance than by readers).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find this outline quite useful. Arguments of outlines being "link farms" are ridiculous in that outlines aren't indiscriminate collections of links. Clearly a lot of work has gone into this outline draft - in collecting the links and carefully placing them in sections. There seems to be some WP:NOTMANUAL stuff here (Online JavaScript learning resources, JavaScript news) that should be removed or partially moved into the External links section. SD0001 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userify for a major rewrite. The WP:OUTLINE article includes "Just like other articles and other stand-alone lists, outlines are subject to the five pillars of Wikipedia, and must comply with Wikipedia's core content policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability." This draft is nowhere close to WP mainspace standards. It's fine as a marketing piece but Wikipedia is not intended to be a host for that sort of material. Starting out, the first sentences are:
  • "JavaScript (JS) – outgrowing its initial role as primarily a scripting language," ??? Cite needed for this mysterious claim as it's still a scripting language.
  • "JavaScript has developed into a high-level, dynamic, untyped, object-based, multi-paradigm, and interpreted programming language." We need sources for these claims. I'm also confused as JavaScript started out as a high-level, untyped, object-based, and interpreted programming language. I did not include "dynamic" and "multi-paradigm" in the list as I have no idea what those words mean in a formal description. They seem like WP:PEA marketing buzzwords that violate NPOV.
  • "JavaScript is one of the three core technologies of World Wide Web content production" (cite needed)

I also noticed that the existing overview appears to be an WP:IINFO style indiscriminate collection of information. For example "JavaScript security issues" section does not have a main article and yet includes three sub-topics. None of the three topics are issues inherent or exclusive to JavaScript. In that sense, their inclusion was indiscriminate. XSS is mentioned in the main JavaScript article but heap spraying and cookie stuffing are not. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep needs some cleanup before it's ready for mainspace, but deletion isn't cleanup. VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2019 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.