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. Needs more discussion of the sources proposed by Regenspaziergang. Sandstein 09:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JsRender/JsViews (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'm not finding coverage meeting WP:GNG for this, and the article gives no indication of significance or note. Largoplazo (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication of significance through significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:IINFO.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say its popularity mostly results from its predecessor jQuery Templates, which did in fact receive broad coverage if alone for the fact that it was the "official" jQuery plugin for JS templates, and jQuery is ubiquitous. That, and the fact that a major player, Microsoft, bases several of their most well-known and widespread web apps on it. I'm a bit hard pressed to say how much coverage really define notability, but there are definitely several articles about it, and hundreds of blog posts mentioning it. Will research what the best resources are to cite. --Regenspaziergang ^!? 09:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of technical points:
    • Being an offshoot of something notable doesn't confer notability. For example, every offshoot anyone's built of Mozilla isn't notable. That's where coverage comes in.
    • Blog posts mentioning it, as in passing, won't help. I guess some blogs may be considered reputable, reliable sources, and maybe some of those have the required focus on this topic.

Largoplazo (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An offshoot is something entirely different though. This here is more like the official version 2 of the same thing, same author and all. It has superseded the original.

I guess the most relevant discussions of JsRender come from Dan Wahlin and John Papa, Microsoft's ASP and web app gurus. Apart from that, many library ecosystems, some even out of the scope of pure JS, make use of it. It can be used with Python's Django framework, with Ruby on Rails and of course npm and others; and it's featured in a very well-received book about jQuery, jQuery Hotshot, and another book on mobile apps with jQuery. --Regenspaziergang ^!? 12:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per my previous comment, WP:GNG is met (WP:IINFO also obviously so.) --Regenspaziergang ^!? 20:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Regenspaziergang (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2018 (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.