Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D3.js Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/D3.js

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 no consensus. This was a close debate. With two of the keep !voters acknowledging the sourcing is borderline there doesn't seem to be a level of consensus that would warrant a straight "keep" decision, but neither is there a consensus to merge or delete. I recommend that participants go ahead with the suggested merge from Protovis to D3.js (and also, unrelated to this close, I noticed a duplicate article at D3js that needs merging and/or redirecting). Feel free to renominate for deletion after three months or so. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D3.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)

I don't see any indication of notability here. The two sources are the javascript library's own website and the Wikipedia article on Datavisualization. I couldn't find any references to it on Google. Seems like an insignificant script with no widespread usage. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Umh?? The exact "D3.js" name get 175 000 hits on google. The team of Protovis (article accepted) built D3.js as a Protovis 2.0. Notoriety + admissibility proved. Yug (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination if someone could show some reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability. The notability of Protovis seems questionable as well, but I'm not nominating it for AfD. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 22:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

175.000 hits for the exact name "D3.js", its notability. Yug (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number of hits are irrelevant to notability, please refer to WP:N and WP:GNUM. Ipsign (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a book on D3. Please close the AfD request so we stop to waste time. Yug (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really convinced that it is notable based on one commercial book. Let the AfD run its course, and hopefully someone with more knowledge on the subject will be able to direct us to some reliable sources, or will be able to confirm that the subject is non-notable. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 14:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in coding, you know that this publisher is THE publisher for coding books. Yug (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS? One source is given, other sources? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability is not established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Protovis (it is an 'official successor' after all); as far as I'm concerned, resulting merged article may be either D3.js or Protovis. Ipsign (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging protovis into D3.js might make sense for the purpose of encyclopedic coverage, but it doesn't help with notability: even merged, these two remain separate subjects with separate notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging is not appropriate in my opinion since it's a ERASE-REDO differently project. It's not like an evolution of Mediawiki, it's like a new wiki software by the same wikimedia team. Yug (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure it makes any difference. FYI evolution of Mediawiki was also "ERASE-REDO" (see Phase II and Phase III, and then analyze the color of the PHP script link). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Userfy: the coverage in multiple reliable sources is required for inclusion. I would note, that the project started on September 27, 2010, and given the recent book, this might be a WP:TOOSOON issue with possible boost of coverage in foreseeable future, so I would prefer userfication with specific requirement to use either WP:AFC or WP:RM to move the article back. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: together the dedicated book and the SourceForge's (who doesn't host this project) news item warrant inclusion per WP:NSOFT and pass WP:GNG (though barely). As the project is new, there is a reasonable hope for future coverage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into JavaScript. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? Or may be I should ask: why not to computer? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because JavaScript is itself a perfectly notable scripting language, and 3D.js has to do with JavaScript in particular. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as much as it has to do with web development and data visualization. Still, we don't normally merge the products into generic articles, as you may have noticed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging does little sense, as Czarkoff argues. Yug (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Keep, and merge Protovis into D3.js in history section per Quddity (below) - 3 sources added including a 2011 book mention while the product was still under development. Closer, please consider. --Lexein (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC). Updated at 08:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - but strongly consider merging Protovis into D3.js (it belongs as a "History" subsection"); separately they're both borderline, but together they reinforce the content & notability of each other. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting - is Protovis really both ended and superceded by D3.js yet? --Lexein (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  According to both official websites, yes. The main developer is the same person, Michael Bostock, who co-developed protovis whilst at Stanford, and has now moved all focus to D3.js.[1] -- Quiddity (talk) 02:22, 23 August 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.