366:(similar). The opensource.com article used in the references also contributes to notability, although in a different way - in being about the community management side of the project. Opensource.com seems to be a reliable source - they have an independent editorial oversight process with named authors and editors, the authors seem to be reasonably knowledgable about the subject matter. Four sources, broadly reliable and GNG compliant. I'd agree that number of contributors or 'stars' on Github are not a measure of notability (hell, I wrote
382:
a measure of notability under GNG, nor does the presence of a larger number of citations than might be expected for an article of that length mean that it is an attempt to feign being GNG. (An article can be unreferenced and still be GNG compliant, or it could have 50 citations and not meet the GNG.
270:
was done in good faith to show that a number of different sources pointed to this being notable (and as general good practice to support claims made in
Knowledge (XXG)). The references show "Significant coverage" with more than trivial mention. There are hits on Google Books & Stack Exchange and
292:
I guess these things are subjective but my gut feeling was this project was really interesting (at least to me) because it breaks down barriers between frontend and backend of web design - thus helps more people easily create web applications. And that's important to know/notable for web developers
293:
and people interested in the web. And I was surprised there wasn't a
Knowledge (XXG) article about it. I don't contribute much to Knowledge (XXG) in terms of edits (mainly because its coverage is so amazing!) but when I see a gap I do occasionally spend the time to fill it. --
166:
383:
Part of the point of an AfD discussion is to verify whether the article is notable under GNG or other notability guidelines precisely because the references—or lack thereof—don't immediately answer that question.) —
205:
This just shows people are using some code published to github. Nothing about this is notable. There are hundreds of thousands of packages on GitHub. Doesn't mean they all get pages on
Knowledge (XXG).
119:
160:
287:- The article excludes advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website (except for the link/logo where appropriate). Hoodie project is non-commercial.
331:
311:
126:
92:
87:
96:
79:
17:
181:
271:
Hacker News (although not on Google News). That said, there are no books published entirely or significantly about Hoodie (AFAIK).
148:
214:
240:
Hoodie is a javascript package similar in size and notability as these packages (which have also have
Knowledge (XXG) articles):
235:
The work on beginner-friendliness and commitment to inclusion and diversity (as noted in one of the references) is notable IMHO.
362:(who are a reliable source in my view - they have an editorial process, they publish books, are generally well-respected) and
428:
401:
462:
142:
40:
339:
319:
230:
Here's my two cents: Not all Github packages should get
Knowledge (XXG) entries, but some do i.e. the notable ones :-)
415:
138:
203:
The core hoodie project has had 59 contributors and 2000+ stars on github. I hope this shows
General notability.
443:
419:
392:
343:
323:
302:
221:
61:
371:
267:
198:
188:
367:
335:
315:
83:
458:
439:
411:
36:
388:
174:
154:
363:
75:
67:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
457:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
359:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
298:
57:
375:
355:
384:
207:
370:!) but the GNG is still met regardless. I'm also not keen on accusing new editors of
113:
358:
in my judgment. The
Infoworld article cited in the article is a reliable source.
294:
243:
53:
248:
451:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
201:
to try to establish notability and stated on the talk page that
431:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
404:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
279:- There are a number secondary, independent sources cited.
256:
109:
105:
101:
173:
437:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
410:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
197:No indication of notability. Page creator has used
187:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
465:). No further edits should be made to this page.
332:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
312:list of Software-related deletion discussions
244:https://github.com/DmitryBaranovskiy/raphael/
8:
330:Note: This debate has been included in the
310:Note: This debate has been included in the
378:. The citations listed in the article are
329:
309:
202:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
249:https://github.com/chaplinjs/chaplin
364:this tutorial from Gadget Magazine
24:
257:https://en.wikipedia.org/CouchDB
1:
444:01:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
420:00:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
393:13:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
344:21:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
324:21:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
303:22:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
222:20:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
62:00:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
360:This article from Sitepoint
482:
285:Independent of the subject
253:Or closely related project
454:Please do not modify it.
354:It just about meets the
32:Please do not modify it.
264:Significant coverage
446:
422:
376:assume good faith
346:
336:Shawn in Montreal
326:
316:Shawn in Montreal
216:What I been doing
76:Hoodie (software)
68:Hoodie (software)
473:
456:
442:
436:
434:
432:
409:
407:
405:
217:
210:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
481:
480:
476:
475:
474:
472:
471:
470:
469:
463:deletion review
452:
447:
438:
427:
425:
423:
400:
398:
219:
215:
208:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
479:
477:
468:
467:
435:
424:
408:
397:
396:
395:
372:WP:BOMBARDMENT
348:
347:
327:
306:
305:
289:
288:
281:
280:
273:
272:
268:WP:BOMBARDMENT
260:
259:
254:
251:
246:
241:
237:
236:
232:
231:
213:
199:WP:BOMBARDMENT
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
478:
466:
464:
460:
455:
449:
448:
445:
441:
440:North America
433:
430:
421:
417:
413:
406:
403:
394:
390:
386:
381:
377:
374:. One should
373:
369:
368:WP:NUMFRIENDS
365:
361:
357:
353:
350:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
328:
325:
321:
317:
313:
308:
307:
304:
300:
296:
291:
290:
286:
283:
282:
278:
275:
274:
269:
265:
262:
261:
258:
255:
252:
250:
247:
245:
242:
239:
238:
234:
233:
229:
226:
225:
224:
223:
218:
211:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
453:
450:
426:
399:
379:
351:
284:
276:
263:
227:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
161:free images
385:Tom Morris
209:Zackmann08
459:talk page
412:T. Canens
37:talk page
461:or in a
429:Relisted
402:Relisted
277:Reliable
120:View log
39:or in a
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
295:Fozy81
266:- The
139:Google
97:delete
54:Kurykh
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
416:talk
389:talk
352:Keep
340:talk
320:talk
299:talk
228:Keep
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
50:keep
380:not
356:GNG
189:TWL
118:– (
52:.
418:)
391:)
342:)
334:.
322:)
314:.
301:)
220:)
212:(/
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
414:(
387:(
338:(
318:(
297:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.