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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ejscript[edit]

Non-notable code implementation. No third party sources or references I could find, so fails WP:NOTABILITY. Ironho lds 23:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creator also added refs to JavaScript/Ecmascript articles. And the article's content sounds like an advert. This smacks of being a vanity page. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Michael O'Brien response. Defense of lack of references says it is a very new open source project. Delete now; create article later, if or when it becomes notable. LotLE×talk 00:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I think I addressed these concerns in my last update and also explained why this is not an "advert" or "vanity page".

Ejscript is noteworthy because it is the first ECMAScript 4 implementation. This is a very new open source project (weeks old) and so references on the web take a little time to show up. I cited a few extra references which I will edit into the article:

It is also starting to show up in blogs

http://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@sqlite.org/msg34651.html

Lastly, other page discussions have complained Javascript and ecmascript about the lack of information about ECMAScript 4. This page is just such a page and is relevant to the most recent trends with Javascript.

I'm happy to edit the article to bring into line with Wikipedia guidelines, but how do I convince it is not just an advert?

Michael O'Brien (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 99 discrete ghits, and not one of them appears to be a reliable secondary source. Message boards and blogs don't cut the mustard. I'm really curious, though: What, exactly, does our article Samba have to do with this software? Deor (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per User talk:Deor --T-rex 03:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is too new and unknown to be notable. Maybe if the project succeeds and is adopted we can consider an article in a year or two. RayAYang (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and has no reliable sources. --Pmedema (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to either remove until notable or rewrite to include much more ECMAScript 4.X information. Still focusing on Ejscript (as it is the only shipping example of the standard at the moment), but make the page include much more background, information and references to and about the new standard. There is no such information in Wikipedia at the moment. Thanks for your time in reviewing and advising.

Michael O'Brien (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: You asked about the Samba reference. Samba 4 uses a prior version of Ejscript. Michael O'Brien (talk) 04:23, 14 July 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.