Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Outline of JavaScript

Draft:Outline of JavaScript

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]

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]
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]