- 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. Popular is not a criteria for inclusion. Fails WP:GNG. Consensus is to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Three.js (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software, de-prodded without explanation or this being fixed. Existing 'refs' to project pages or Youtube, no reliable sources establishing notability. A web search turns up more of the same and some blogs. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Three.js is a kind of popular API in rendering 3D graphics in HTML5. It has more than 6000 watchers in GitHub, and some of the experiments in Chrome Experiments also used Three.js. See [1], [2], [3]. Derek LeungLM 23:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is notability, not popularity, based on reliable secondary sources such as scholarly publications and mainstream press. The idea is that if it is really popular someone will take time to write about it, someone who does not have an interest in it, writing in a publication or format with a degree of editorial control (peer-reviewed or with a editorial policy).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Like this one in HTML5Rocks? Derek LeungLM 23:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- That site is "open source and community driven", editable by anyone so not a reliable source.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Like this one in HTML5Rocks? Derek LeungLM 23:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is notability, not popularity, based on reliable secondary sources such as scholarly publications and mainstream press. The idea is that if it is really popular someone will take time to write about it, someone who does not have an interest in it, writing in a publication or format with a degree of editorial control (peer-reviewed or with a editorial policy).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- .net magazine
- opera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.162.51 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC) — 81.184.162.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Again those look like tutorials contributed by someone with an interest in the API.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: So you are saying Wikipedia is also open source and everyone can edit it so it is more likely to be not a reliable source and we shouldn't trust Wikipedia? -- [ Derek Leung | LM ] 02:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Again those look like tutorials contributed by someone with an interest in the API.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep. This is an article about a popular Javascript API. Why should it be deleted? It is an important topic as it is used a lot for 3D animation in webpages. Llightex (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Popularity is not a criterium for inclusion. Lacks references to coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Sandstein 05:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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.