Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JSHint (2nd nomination)

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 keep. There seems to be general agreement that the sources found during the course of the AfD establish notability. -Scottywong | speak _ 18:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JSHint

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Once again, this article fails the notability criteria largely due to lack of sources. It was declined CSD because it's a different version of the article, and the prod nomination was summarily removed by an IP. This version of the article has even fewer reliable sources than last time. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's absolutely no proof that this is anything more than someone's little pet project. Completely lacks any notable sources. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Topic appears to just meet WP:GNG, per:

Significant coverage: Maintainable JavaScript
Just enough to qualify for significant coverage: Professional Jquery
Additionally, here's some mentions: Beginning Facebook Game Apps Development, Modern JavaScript: Develop and Design.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this review on a site that uses professional reviewers only. [1] That plus the book results already found, I think proves notability. Dream Focus 12:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I'm missing something, that link doesn't really seem to have non-trivial coverage of JSHint. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But what if it is trivial? It's not Wikipedia's job to give a value judgement on JSHint, just that it exists and "notable" people are talking about it. Gotofritz (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's the WP:GNG's job to require "non-trivial" coverage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the need for notability when it comes to politics etc, but here we are talking about web software, distruted on the web and discussed in blogs and message boards. This is simply an entry saying 'it exists', which it does. It has more than a thousand downloads on GitHub, more than JSLint which you guys don't seem to have an issue with. I don't even understand why we are having the discussion in the first place.

if there aren't enough references, then the action should be 'gather more reference', not delete. There are a lot of references around the web, what value would adding 45 links to discussion of the tool on various article add? the main points are made in the ones I linked to. But by all mean, add more if you feel it needs them. Here are a couple RWB, Paul Irish, Chrome advoacte at Google
if it _was_ someone pet project (it isn't), this doesn't make the entry worth deleting. This is an entry that describes what this software is, it doesn't say anywhere this is _the_ industry standard (although a quick Google will show it is, in fact, used widely in the industry).
1200 downloads on GitHub and counting .... *EDIT* it was 1200 watechers, my mistake Gotofritz (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gotofritz A small clarification: 1200 is a number of watchers—i.e. people who monitor the progress of this project on a regular basis. Number of downloads (if you combine downloads from jshint.com and NPM installs) is way higher —antonkovalyov — antonkovalyov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

antonkovalyov ooops :-) edited still, it goes somewhere towards proving it's not just someone's pet project. Sorry for getting so animated on a page about your project, I just find the whole discussion unreasonable. Who cares if it's someone's pet project or not, as long as the data is accurate? Part of the fun of WP are entries like this Toilet paper orientation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotofritz (talk • contribs) 19:16, June 6, 2012

Nice, keep and bookmarked. --Hiddenray (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2012 (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.