

Node.js wikipedia entry marked for deletion for not being notable - reddittor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Node.js

======
nbpoole
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#General_notabili...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#General_notability_guideline)

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=...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Node.js&oldid=423542536)

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.

------
phwd
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.

------
silentbicycle
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_.

~~~
silentbicycle
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.

~~~
mturmon
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.

~~~
silentbicycle
Wikipedia has a lot of surface area. Another favorite example of mine:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_fish_on_stamp...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_fish_on_stamps)

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).

------
m0nastic
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.

------
olalonde
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>

~~~
tokenadult
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>

------
davidclopez
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=423637476)

~~~
danielle17
saw that, looks like it is fixed now

~~~
davidclopez
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.

------
derleth
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.

~~~
aberkowitz
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.

~~~
dexen
_> (...) 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).

------
joeybaker
And then there was the day that the HN and the Wiki communities clashed.

------
cdr
The culprit: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mootros>

~~~
shii
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.

