Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JavaScript editor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jerry (talk | contribs) at 03:14, 25 December 2008 (cls/del). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 03:14, 25 December 2008 by Jerry (talk | contribs) (cls/del)
- 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 Delelte. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- JavaScript editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article's topic is not notable. The actual topic should be covered by Integrated development environment, because most of the listed programs can handle more than just JavaScript. In addition, there are no articles on C editor or Java editor or PHP editor (simply a redirect to a list page). Given the placement of the external links in the article, it is possible this article is used by companies to increase their marketing profile or SEO rating. Voidvector (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Voidvector (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Make this into a disambiguation page. "JavaScript editor" could mean either an IDE or text editor for writing Javascript, or a Javascript-based WYSIWYG editor embedded in web apps. In my opinion, JavaScript editor should be a disambiguation page pointing to Text editor, Integrated development environment and WYSIWYG editor. LinguistAtLarge
- Turn into a list and move to List of Javascript editors (like the PHP example mentioned above), keeping this title as a redirect (or a disambiguation, as LinguistAtLarge suggested). --Waldir talk 13:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but trim it down to a list of programs. No need to discuss what javascript is, or what an ide is. There are separate articles for that. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No references = not notable. Some of the intro content could perhaps be moved to Source code editor, but otherwise this is just a list of commercial software products with links to vendor pages. The entry on JavaScript could make the obvious point that people use editors to create JavaScript programs, but should surely not provide a vendor catalog. The analogy is that Chinese Cuisine is a legitimate subject, but Chinese Restaurants in Chicago is not. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ok for the references argument, but the analogy is not quite correct IMO. What would you say about List of restaurant chains in the United States, then? I think the point here is that all restaurants are for-profit, and a list of these may be interpreted as some sort of catalog; but javascript editors can be free/open-source, so a list of these is not automatically spam or whatever you want to call it. It might be a mostly a list of commercial products by now, but it certainly has the potential to become more neutral if we let it evolve the wiki way. --Waldir talk 00:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I am not against articles about commercial products if they are notable. Microsoft Windows, Paris Hilton etc. reasonably have articles - millions of people are affected by or have opinions on these products. They are clearly notable. But I am against articles about less notable (to the general public) subjects that are structured in a way that will attract advertisers, with endless edit wars. Both JavaScript and Source code editor are entirely reasonable articles, just like Chinese Cuisine and Restaurant, but I am uneasy about the intersection, naming specific examples. If we dropped all mention of specific vendors, would there be enough left about JavaScript editors (as opposed to editors for all the other languages) to make a worthwhile article? I doubt it. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, maybe I should vote keep and add an entry for the Aymatth2 JavaScript editor. Amazing value at $19.95 plus shipping and handling. Many unique features. Be the envy of your neighbors. Everyone is buying it - but stocks are limited. Buy now and get a free fortune cookie with each order! I am sure I could find a vendor who really has a product and would be willing to give me a commission on the sales... Aymatth2 (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ok for the references argument, but the analogy is not quite correct IMO. What would you say about List of restaurant chains in the United States, then? I think the point here is that all restaurants are for-profit, and a list of these may be interpreted as some sort of catalog; but javascript editors can be free/open-source, so a list of these is not automatically spam or whatever you want to call it. It might be a mostly a list of commercial products by now, but it certainly has the potential to become more neutral if we let it evolve the wiki way. --Waldir talk 00:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Move. The article if kept must be technical: how is built a JavaScript Editor. Why it is special. Would have to me moved into wikibooks in my mind. Macaldo (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No references, content is borderline G11, delete as per WP:V (none). Suggest disambiguation redirect to Text editor - DustyRain (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2008 (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.