6 ms·

Node.js wikipedia entry marked for deletion for not being notable

67 points by reddittor 15y ago

olalonde 15y ago
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 http://www.indeed.com/q-Node.js-l-United-States-jobs.html
- tokenadult 15y ago
  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
- cppsnob 15y ago
  I think you mean: "125 jobs that mention node.js anywhere in the description."
cdr 15y ago
The culprit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mootros http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mootros
- reddittor 15y ago
  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.
- trafficlight 15y ago
  I don't see why any of those articles should be deleted.
  - compuguy 15y ago
    Wikipedia can be a complex, and confusing place. I've edited several articles, and I still don't get their culture....
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - cdr 15y ago
    >> If by "culprit" you mean "person who noted that there a number of very poorly cited Wikipedia entries," yes. "And decided that said heavily-trafficked articles should be deleted as being unnotable, instead of asking for more citations." Sure.
    - nbpoole 15y ago
      Sorry about that. I deleted my original post because I liked reddittor's phrasing better. But since you decided to reply to my post, I'll respond too. :-) --- "And decided that said heavily-trafficked articles should be deleted as being unnotable, instead of asking for more citations." Except that's the opposite of what happened. Read the notice: anyone is free to remove it even if the contents of the page aren't changed. Removing the notice stops the process. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion: --- Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate, but that it does not meet the more stringent criteria for speedy deletion. If no editors object, nominated pages are deleted after seven days. An article may be PRODed only once. This process reduces the load on the articles for deletion (AfD) process, but should not be used to bypass discussion at AfD. There are three steps: 1. An article or disambiguation page is nominated when an editor carefully reviews the article and inserts the {{proposed deletion}} tag by placing {{subst:proposed deletion}} on the page. This lists the article in Category:Proposed deletion. 2. If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed. 3. The article is first checked and then deleted by an administrator 7 days after nomination. It may be undeleted upon request. ... To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion}} tag from the article --- Personally, I greatly prefer that to the usual system I see: vague warnings about non-notability followed much later by a full AfD process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion). Take this as a wake-up call that the article needs some attention, not as a personal attack or an attack against a community.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- shii 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    [deleted]
nbpoole 15y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#General_notability_guideline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#General_notabili... 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=423542536 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.
m0nastic 15y ago
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.
phwd 15y ago
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 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/ 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jquery Notice how it actually explains the examples in more than one line. Again this is all observation.
derleth 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    > (...) 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).
  - justincormack 15y ago
    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.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
joeybaker 15y ago
And then there was the day that the HN and the Wiki communities clashed.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- pkulak 15y ago
  It's looked exactly like this at least since I last looked at it last week.
silentbicycle 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Eggman) has 47 references.
  - mturmon 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      Wikipedia has a lot of surface area. Another favorite example of mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_fish_on_stamps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_fish_on_stamp... I'm not sure deleting stubs really gains much (http://forre.st/storage 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).
davidclopez 15y ago
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=423637476 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Node.js&oldid=...
- danielle17 15y ago
  saw that, looks like it is fixed now
  - davidclopez 15y ago
    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.

67 points by reddittor 15y ago

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 http://www.indeed.com/q-Node.js-l-United-States-jobs.html

tokenadult 15y ago
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
cppsnob 15y ago
I think you mean: "125 jobs that mention node.js anywhere in the description."

cdr 15y ago

The culprit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mootros http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mootros

reddittor 15y ago
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.
trafficlight 15y ago
I don't see why any of those articles should be deleted.
- compuguy 15y ago
  Wikipedia can be a complex, and confusing place. I've edited several articles, and I still don't get their culture....
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- cdr 15y ago
  >> If by "culprit" you mean "person who noted that there a number of very poorly cited Wikipedia entries," yes. "And decided that said heavily-trafficked articles should be deleted as being unnotable, instead of asking for more citations." Sure.
  - nbpoole 15y ago
    Sorry about that. I deleted my original post because I liked reddittor's phrasing better. But since you decided to reply to my post, I'll respond too. :-) --- "And decided that said heavily-trafficked articles should be deleted as being unnotable, instead of asking for more citations." Except that's the opposite of what happened. Read the notice: anyone is free to remove it even if the contents of the page aren't changed. Removing the notice stops the process. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion: --- Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate, but that it does not meet the more stringent criteria for speedy deletion. If no editors object, nominated pages are deleted after seven days. An article may be PRODed only once. This process reduces the load on the articles for deletion (AfD) process, but should not be used to bypass discussion at AfD. There are three steps: 1. An article or disambiguation page is nominated when an editor carefully reviews the article and inserts the {{proposed deletion}} tag by placing {{subst:proposed deletion}} on the page. This lists the article in Category:Proposed deletion. 2. If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed. 3. The article is first checked and then deleted by an administrator 7 days after nomination. It may be undeleted upon request. ... To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion}} tag from the article --- Personally, I greatly prefer that to the usual system I see: vague warnings about non-notability followed much later by a full AfD process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion). Take this as a wake-up call that the article needs some attention, not as a personal attack or an attack against a community.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
shii 15y ago
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 15y ago
  [deleted]

nbpoole 15y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#General_notability_guideline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#General_notabili... 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=423542536 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.

m0nastic 15y ago

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.

phwd 15y ago

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 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/ 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jquery Notice how it actually explains the examples in more than one line. Again this is all observation.

derleth 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  > (...) 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).
- justincormack 15y ago
  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.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

joeybaker 15y ago

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

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

pkulak 15y ago
It's looked exactly like this at least since I last looked at it last week.

silentbicycle 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Eggman) has 47 references.
- mturmon 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    Wikipedia has a lot of surface area. Another favorite example of mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_fish_on_stamps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_fish_on_stamp... I'm not sure deleting stubs really gains much (http://forre.st/storage 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).

davidclopez 15y ago

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=423637476 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Node.js&oldid=...

danielle17 15y ago
saw that, looks like it is fixed now
- davidclopez 15y ago
  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.