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. Those arguing for "keep" did not show that the subject has significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NodeBB[edit]

NodeBB (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)

This article is not written from a neutral PoV ("modern platform that will hopefully help shape forums of the future"), contains original research (" Unlike competing forum software offerings", this is ~~almost~~ impossible to track down), contains links that are not relevant for the article itself, violates WP:CRYSTAL ("will soon allow integration with services such as WrapBootstrap") and the NodeBB community has intentionally been holding an edit war over at Comparison of Internet forum software to add their project to the list, of which this page is another attempt to add it, and appears to be solely made to win that argument. YannickFran (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In a strange way, the seeming meatpuppetry in the debate above belies an accusation of promotion -- or at the very least shows a dedicated community willing to wade into byzantine Wikipedia politics. The article doesn't cite great sources, but I was able to find several third-party sources that discuss the software in an objective way (whether the article uses them presently doesn't impact a deletion discussion overly much). It certainly doesn't meet what the WP:NSOFT essay suggests (subject of books, curricula, research,etc), but neither does any software I've used on computers in the last decade.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per this the abovementioned source is blog which "offers services for vendors" and hosts reviews by self-declared experts. Wikipedia's notability guidelines require "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". This blog fails the guideline. Kraxler (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. We do not judge the notability of one article in comparison to another. If you think any article is less notabvle than this one, nominate it for deletion. Kraxler (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more opinions by editors who are not obviously canvassed.  Sandstein  20:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a place for fundamental discussions of the universe and humanity. Just show us sources which may be used under our notability guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kraxler: First let me point out that WP:Notability_(software) is not a "guideline," merely an essay -- and a poor one at that. So if you're referring to the general notability guidelines, I and others have already said that the sources cited in the article are sufficient, and I see a few more out there which could be used. AfD may not be a discussion forum, but neither is it a Star Chamber, where hapless new users are forced to defend themselves in the face of questionably-applied guidelines. Remember, it is not the present content or state of citation in the article which is up for discussion on notability grounds, it is the topic itself (WP:NPOSSIBLE).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is a discussion. The !voters check the topic and the sources in the article. They also check the web for additional sources. In this case, the sources in the article do not support notability, as pointed out in my !vote. I checked the web and found nothing better. So, it's now your turn to show something. It's that easy. AfD is neither a Star Chamber nor a Kangaroo Court. If any "hapless" editor gets a notable article nominated for deletion here, count on me to save it. In all other cases, we'll have to bow to the guidelines independent of personal preferences. Kraxler (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kraxler: Noting that I cannot accept your premise that the burden of proof for sourcing lies on non-deletionists in a field where notability is not the objective doctrine it is with people or places, I've done some brief searching myself (in order of relative importance). Interview: StrongLoop (an IBM Company) , CMS Critic Review,NodeBB – Open Source Forum Platform for Modern Web, and The Beginner's Guide to NodeBB. Obviously, the last entry on a blog is least relevant here, but these all represent verifiable, editorially independent discussion (and interviews) of the software in question. This was a simple Google search. I'm sure interested parties could proffer more and better sources. But given the state of the "essay" Wikipedia:NSOFT and my long rants about software notability, it's not reasonable to start by assuming things aren't notable and requiring article research to foreclose deletion (WP:DEADLINE applies).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "Interview on StrongLoop" is a WP:PRIMARY source, it can be used to ref facts, but doesn't add to notability. I pointed out already why "CMS Critic" is not usable. The "WebAppers" post looks like a press release by the company, it does not discuss the subject but only announces specifications and has a demo video, not usable for notability. The "Beginners Guide" is a tutorial about how to use this software, not good for notablity. Here we go again: the WP:General notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Your "sources" are either connected to the subject (primary pieces, interviews, sales outlets, press releases) or published in sources which are not "reliable" under WP:RS (blogs that host anything without checking facts or veracity, as long as the client pays). Kraxler (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree then. What I can cobble together to be your criteria amount to software topics covered in academic literature. Reading independently operated blog and content sites on the Web may not be your cup of tea, but that's a long way from making wild and unfounded accusations of sources being bought or rendering large swathes of the web "unreliable." Perhaps I'm biased being a software developer myself, but I think you've backed the criteria here into a corner which no article in this area could conceivably meet. Which is why WP:NSOFT has been such a failure.
For those who are inclined to take WP:NSOFT as guideline and to assert, as @Piotrus: does that "this simply fails Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (software), and that's all there's to it," have simply not read that essay, which for the "Reliability and significance of sources" says "It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown." Users on the talk page have objected (Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(software)#Open_source_software:_too_inclusive) to that special treatment of open source software, but it remains. Please exercise tolerance for topics you may not be knowledgeable about the sourcing of. We're here to edit an encyclopedia, not put web pages authors' motives on trial.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we have to consider WP:PROMO # 5 (this is a "policy", i.e. it's stronger than any guideline). And there are thousands of articles on softwares which indeed have sources that pass the criteria of GNG, there are well-accepted independent blogs, software magazines, books about softwares, mainstream media which also talk about software etc. None of those are here. That's the difference. Kraxler (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, because of growing amount of spam, we have no choice but to put such pages to trial. Otherwise we will become not an encyclopedia, but a directory of all software and everything else, including Yellow Pages, all in promotional language. Simply put, NodeBB is not important enough to be in an encyclopedia, because it has not been noticed by anyone significant outside it's - apparently quite loyal - community. Rather than fighting here, I'd recommend that said community tries to get the software reviewed in some reliable sources, such as PC World or other described in Category:Computer magazines. Then you can ask for undeletion, showing new sources which justify the inclusion here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus:, I should be very careful about computer magazines, despite their mention in the software guidelines. Almost all of the industry publications I'm familiar with in 2015 are far less credible than the blogs we've discussed here. Much of their product reviews are "advertorials" and the rest are chosen from the ranks of the organizations in favor at the magazine's ad department. Per WP:NSOFT's suggestions for the use of informal sources for software of this kind, developing a better sense of which are of quality would be more useful. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting argument. One that, however, should be made at the discussion page of NSOFT rather then here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I actually went to do just that at WP:NSOFT, but realized it doesn't get particular about magazines or other sources, and actually (as many have said) leaves the door quite wide open for F/OSS software. The nitpicking with which books, magazines, and such that we like is primarily an AfD cultural artifact it would seem, not a policy thing.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to excuse my formatting if this fails the norm. It isn't a direct reply to previous comments so I start fresh. As an attempt to follow WP:NSOFT I'll list the sources and arguments I've found so far. http://t3n.de/news/nodebb-nodejs-forum-557263/ seems to be a German magazine. Articles published in t3n seems to be crowd sourced but it is referenced by Google News which is given as an example on how to source. I also question the dismissal of CMS critic by Kraxler. If CMS critic is to be dismissed due to "offers services for vendors", anyone making money on reviews and advice should be dismissed. Given the notability of companies such as Gartner I say that's unrealistic. If Kraxler thinks CMS critic is writing about nodeBB for money, the burden of proof lies with Kraxler. WP:NSOFT states "It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown." The same guideline states "An app that is just another entry in a crowded field needs more persuasively significant sources, of a kind that indicate that it stands out from the crowd." If you know forum software, you will know that it's heavily dominated by typical LAMP-type solutions. If you know about software development you will know: A forum based on NodeJS, Redis/MongoDB and nginx stands out. The source for this claim can be found on Github. The t3n article explains how nodeBB stands out if you don't want to look at source code yourself. TiaZzz (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The T3N source seems to be acceptable, they purport to be an independent software magazine. Concerning CMS, I don't make the guidelines, I just follow them. Anyone making money out of posting/hosting press releases should be discarded, yes. CMS critics post a huge offer ("open to services for vendors") on their main page, so, I expect, they would post anything if they can get money for it. Kraxler (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that press releases are aimed at media, right? And media use these, even in articles? You have discarded most if not all media in that case. In any way, where does it say that CMS critic posted the actual press release, and better yet - received money for it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof remember. Your claim is moot until you back it up. Referencing that CMS critic offers services for money means nothing. So does Gartner. TiaZzz (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, if I opine on one particular thing, other things are irrelevant. You can't say that what somebody did is right because that what somebody did wrong was done wrong by somebody else too. It's actually one of the oldest defense mechanisms, in use since the stone age, but unworthy of encyclopedic debate.
Second, WP:GNG requires (I quote again, some day you'll read it) "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Press releases are not independent of the subject, per definition, they are released by the subject. Sources which advertise that their space is for sale for all comers are "unreliable" under our guideline, because they don't check facts, and don't make editorial judgments, they print anything that pays. We're running around in circles, it would be easier for you to check out the guidelines instead of pushing your view, no matter what. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Kraxler (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are trying to say in your first paragraph. If you are referring to CMS critic vs. Gartner then yes, I get to make the claim. You are lumping all business that make money off of something into a bag of "no good". I've argued that this is false and given you an example where a company offers services for money and is held in good regard - Gartner. I'm not claiming CMS critic is as notable as Gartner, the argument is a respons to your accusation. The burden of proof still lies with you. "Source is no good because they make money selling services" is a generalisation and you'll need to back that up. I think you'll find that generalisations were invented around the stone age as well.
WP:GNG is general, WP:NSOFT is specific. I don't know the hierarchy of guidelines and rules of WP but it's becoming clear that cherrypicking among the rules is common once you know them. I'll write this one again so perhaps you'll read it this time - WP:NSOFT states "It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown." nodeBB is open source software. Thus it exists in the domain of WP:NSOFT. Can we at least agree on this? I haven't seen that space is for sale on CMS critic. If you are assuming that the "vendors" CMS critic mention are only companies trying to sell their CMS or forum software, I think you are basing your conclusion on assumptions and not facts. They state they run unbiased reviews. I don't know the validity of that, but I know that your claim is just an assumption without facts. Perhaps it's enough on WP in general, but like I said - WP:NSOFT gives leeway for FOSS. As for checking the guidelines, I agree with you. I am painfully ignorant of a lot of them. Problem is that the sheer volum of various guidelines is massive and some even contradict. But the ones I have found seem to fit and no WP guideline can denounce logical validity. TiaZzz (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2015 (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.
More