Node.js wikipedia entry marked for deletion for not being notable
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
The article in question has a single external reference: a page on the CommonJS wiki which basically just says that NodeJS exists. Add some real citations to the article and the issue goes away.
Edit: Some anonymous user removed the notice. Here's the old version of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Node.js&oldid=...
Also, notice the sentences "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason" and "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." in the original warning.
It reads as a README file to get me started with Node.js which looks very similar to the original
So a bit more effort may need to go into making this useful for public knowledge. (The Community section is not needed in my opinion) This is just my idea based on how the jQuery wiki page was organized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jquery
Notice how it actually explains the examples in more than one line. Again this is all observation.
I mean, Twisted and Tornado have actual references. (Eventmachine does not, but whatever.)
Node currently has two, one of which is a linkbait-y post on readwriteweb, the other is an extremely meager wiki template page. Ergo, it isn't notable.
I mean, the page about the villain from Sonic the Hedgehog ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Eggman) has 47 references.
But then, after a look at the article, it's clear that you can't make a good case for deletion after all. There's a lot of info there, a lot of deep cross-links, etc.
I'm not sure deleting stubs really gains much (http://forre.st/storage --> "here's a nickel, go buy another gigabyte"), but adding sources really does improve articles. There's concrete info about node.js that people can cite (and the less hype-ish, the better).
And there was the first time I've ever tried to edit a Wikipedia page.
Like it or not, Wikipedia is the web's jumping-off point for serious knowledge about a given subject, especially technical subjects, and having citations in the article gives people reasonable places to jump off to.
So don't spam the deletion discussion. Add good citations and references instead.
There are things that I have learned from Wikipedia that no one else will ever be able to read - because some arbitrary decision maker decided it wasn't important. That's what frustrates people.
Quite the opposite, in my experience. The policies are reasonable and help the content stay. However, they are subject to interpretation -- and some experienced users that prefer deletionism (``deletionists'') -- are able to game the system and get some content removed pretty much in spite of policies (at least its spirit).
In most of the cases what is deleted has no real content, but a year or so later someone will recreate the article well, probably not knowing it had been deleyed.