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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodie (software)[edit]

Hoodie (software) (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)

No indication of notability. Page creator has used WP:BOMBARDMENT to try to establish notability and stated on the talk page that The core hoodie project has had 59 contributors and 2000+ stars on github. I hope this shows General notability. This just shows people are using some code published to github. Nothing about this is notable. There are hundreds of thousands of packages on GitHub. Doesn't mean they all get pages on Wikipedia. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here's my two cents: Not all Github packages should get Wikipedia entries, but some do i.e. the notable ones :-)

The work on beginner-friendliness and commitment to inclusion and diversity (as noted in one of the references) is notable IMHO.

Hoodie is a javascript package similar in size and notability as these packages (which have also have Wikipedia articles):

https://github.com/DmitryBaranovskiy/raphael/

https://github.com/chaplinjs/chaplin

Or closely related project

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CouchDB

Significant coverage - The WP:BOMBARDMENT was done in good faith to show that a number of different sources pointed to this being notable (and as general good practice to support claims made in Wikipedia). The references show "Significant coverage" with more than trivial mention. There are hits on Google Books & Stack Exchange and Hacker News (although not on Google News). That said, there are no books published entirely or significantly about Hoodie (AFAIK).

Reliable - There are a number secondary, independent sources cited.

Independent of the subject - The article excludes advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website (except for the link/logo where appropriate). Hoodie project is non-commercial.

I guess these things are subjective but my gut feeling was this project was really interesting (at least to me) because it breaks down barriers between frontend and backend of web design - thus helps more people easily create web applications. And that's important to know/notable for web developers and people interested in the web. And I was surprised there wasn't a Wikipedia article about it. I don't contribute much to Wikipedia in terms of edits (mainly because its coverage is so amazing!) but when I see a gap I do occasionally spend the time to fill it. --Fozy81 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It just about meets the GNG in my judgment. The Infoworld article cited in the article is a reliable source. This article from Sitepoint (who are a reliable source in my view - they have an editorial process, they publish books, are generally well-respected) and this tutorial from Gadget Magazine (similar). The opensource.com article used in the references also contributes to notability, although in a different way - in being about the community management side of the project. Opensource.com seems to be a reliable source - they have an independent editorial oversight process with named authors and editors, the authors seem to be reasonably knowledgable about the subject matter. Four sources, broadly reliable and GNG compliant. I'd agree that number of contributors or 'stars' on Github are not a measure of notability (hell, I wrote WP:NUMFRIENDS!) but the GNG is still met regardless. I'm also not keen on accusing new editors of WP:BOMBARDMENT. One should assume good faith. The citations listed in the article are not a measure of notability under GNG, nor does the presence of a larger number of citations than might be expected for an article of that length mean that it is an attempt to feign being GNG. (An article can be unreferenced and still be GNG compliant, or it could have 50 citations and not meet the GNG. Part of the point of an AfD discussion is to verify whether the article is notable under GNG or other notability guidelines precisely because the references—or lack thereof—don't immediately answer that question.) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2017 (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.