Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CssQuery

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CssQuery

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability has been doubtful since 2009; nothing has been done to establish it since then. Article was deprodded with the reason "7 pages of results in GBooks" — there are actually only five hits, three of which are bogus and completely unrelated, and the other two are passing mentions. — Keφr 14:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Very few functions calls warrant their own article, and right now we don't even have an article for the much-discussed (and much maligned) strcpy(). I'm sure many passing references can be found, but I'm not seeing any discussion of why this particular function is significant or worthy of note. Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Article now rewritten to focus on the library, not the function. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My idea of a passing mention is an entry in a phonebook or a cite or perhaps a single sentence. It certainly does not include a passage that continues for nearly a page: [1]. Nor does it include this. And there seems to be something on 7 pages of this. This topic does seem to me to satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James500, I appreciate the legwork, but the first two links you've given refer to the CssQuery library, not the function call (I can't tell what the third link refers to). The library may well be notable, and I'd have no objection to deleting this article and creating an article based on the library. If you're up for skipping that process and rewriting the article now, I'd be happy to reconsider my !vote. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I probably lack the expertise to rewrite this article. I think I've just demonstrated that. James500 (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this a bit more, the library cssQuery appears to have exactly one public function, called cssQuery(). So you're within your rights to call me pedantic. And.... the article is a WP:COPYVIO of [2]. Eh, l'll see if I can figure out how to rewrite this. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC copyvios should be expunged from history, so we might as well WP:BLOWUP this article. But for me, this function barely deserves a footnote in the article about Cascading Style Sheets. — Keφr 20:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keφr, I agree with you that the function is non-notable, but I think the notability of the library is at least arguable. I reread WP:COPYVIO and didn't see anything about copyright violations having to be expunged from the history, but this isn't my area of expertise. Can you point me to the page you were thinking about? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim that the "library" is notable but the "function" is not? They are one and the same thing! How much are you going to write based on the sources that exist? Three sentences? It barely deserves a redirect. Together with querySelector this function/library can be just as well covered in [[Cascading Style Sheets]]. — Keφr 09:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keφr: My Ph.D. is in computer science, so from where I'm sitting libraries and functions are chalk and cheese. Functions tend not to be notable because they (should) do exactly one thing, and beyond a bare description of how to do that one thing there isn't much to be said. Libraries are collections of functions, and are much closer to the level of abstraction used in thinking about the actual problem we're trying to solve. It's not a great analogy, but while we don't have many articles on sentences, we do have a lot of articles on books (even though they're just collections of sentences, they manage to be more than the sum of their parts). I count 62 functions in the current version, not one of which is notable on its own. Taken as a collection, I see a historically-significant library that had a strong influence on jQuery. If you'd like to expand the article, we could really stand a background section on the problem the library is trying to solve (and why the problem wasn't initially addressed in the design of CSS) as well as a mention of what other solutions are available. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I know what a library is. This library consists of a single (user-visible) function, which makes distinguishing the two silly. If this library had an influence on jQuery, this only shows it deserves a mention at [[jQuery]]. Which can be put there without keeping apparently copyright-infringing revisions around. — Keφr 18:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, this topic clearly satisfies GNG. The sources contain a lot more than three sentences, and the article can be expanded. James500 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC) And there are 49 pages of results in Google. How many of those have you looked at? James500 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC) At the top of this page you appear to assert that the library and function are not the same thing. You are not being consistent. James500 (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that there was any infringing material in the earlier revisions of this page. As regards the removal of material from page histories copyright infringement is criteria 1 of WP:REVDEL. I am not sure what would happen in this case. James500 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Say it with me: de-le-tion. — Keφr 09:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of comment isn't likely to convince anyone that you are right. James500 (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—per James500 and a refocusing of the article from the function call to the library proper. And cleaning up the copyvio. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have unstruck my "keep" !vote above on the assumption that the copyright issues do not require the deletion of the article. James500 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 13:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the nomination, Lesser Cartographies and James500 have refocused the the article on the library. The three books now referenced in the article show multiple in-depth coverage sufficient for notability per WP:GNG. In my opinion, that this is the first public lib to support CSS1, 2, and 3 also contributes to notability. The article itself has been purged of copyvio and while but a stub, is well formed and referenced. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2014 (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.