Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Library
- 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 delete. lifebaka++ 13:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Library[edit]
- My Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable software that fails WP:CSD#A7 and pretty much WP:CSD#G11. However multiple deletions have occured and been protested, so some good faith would seem to merit a wider debate on just how notable this is. Pedro : Chat 23:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete regretably. No independent reliable third party sources to establish its importance. Artene50 (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is important--see massive discussion threads in comp.lang.javascript that led to its development. Search for "Code Worth Recommending."
Furthermore, other libraries that are listed next to this one on DMOZ use browser sniffing and do not support XHTML. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinsoft (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More explanation is needed about the architecture. It is notable for several reasons. The library itself, as well as its online builder are unique developments in the world of browser scripting. Cinsoft (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a reliable third party source: [1]
The author is respected in the JS community and much of the code and techniques discussed in the article are from My Library. It is credited as such. All of this may be a little hard to follow as Peter's "Code Worth Recommending" project is now defunct. All of the code that I added to it ended up in "My Library." Most of it was debated endlessly on comp.lang.javascript, which is the appropriate forum for such discussions. Cinsoft (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it does not in fact meet CFD A7, because A7 excludes software (among most other things). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcon Kirtaran (talk • contribs)
- Delete I don't see any assertion of notability in the article, nor any reliable sources. The link posted by Cinsoft above is a blog, which is specifically NOT considered a reliable source (see WP:RS). To be kept, this article will need to demonstrate that this software has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. That in turn is because Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information: we don't cover anything until reliable secondary sources have already done so. AndyJones (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I don't have to deal with CFD A7 (?) The assertion of notability is that it is the only library of the dozen or so listed in DMOZ and the Google directory that is competently written and future proof (no browser sniffing is the main point.) The people who write about browser scripting do so in blogs. Then there are the thousands of articles in comp.lang.javascript that went into the creation of this code. (Most of) it has been discussed to death by the very people who are most qualified to discuss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinsoft (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Added more links to outside material. Checked other libraries (e.g. Mootools) with similar Wiki pages and they have no outside articles either. The difference is that nobody in the know would recommend the code in Mootools. On the contrary, much of the code in My Library came about due to the "Code Worth Recommending" project in comp.lang.javascript. You won't find a more reliable source on the state of browser scripting.[reply]
I'd be glad to audit all of the JavaScript-related material in here. Much of it that relates to the much-vilified libraries reads like an advertisement. There is little insight to be had about browser scripting from these pages. Cinsoft (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one should be added as well for many of the same reasons (number one it is competently written code.) Fork JavaScript It appears that most journalists do not follow cutting edge browser scripting developments. Unless editors wish to wade through hundreds of discussion threads in comp.lang.javascript, there is no way to make the call on which are significant and which are not. Likewise, there is no way to know that much of what is written about JavaScript libraries in the blogs is parroted hyperbole with no reasoned debate to back it up. Cinsoft (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there are no reliable sources about this library. -- Whpq (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many people on the planet are reliable sources on the topic of browser scripting libraries? The answer is: not many. Certainly I am one of them and I can tell you that junk like MooTools, jQuery, etc. needs to be counterbalanced here. Nobody with a minimum clue would use those libraries. The entries for those read like infomercials. There is nothing to set them apart from each other either. Cinsoft (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - the status of other articles isn't really relevant to this discussion. See WP:WAX. You've posted quite a bit in this discussion, but one of things you haven't posted is a reliable source to help establish notability. And based on your user name, it would appear you have a conflict of interest. -- Whpq (talk) 02:18, 10 August 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.