Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next.js

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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next.js (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG.

Source review:

• [1], appears to be a crowdsourced site, not reliable
• [2] largely just an interview with one of the subject's creators, not independent
• [3] company website
• [4] unclear whether this should be considered independent or not, as the author is a Google employee, although they claim to have no direct connection to this project.
• [5], [6], [7], [8] Routine coverage of software updates that look like thinly veiled press releases
• [9] How-to that mentions Next.js but isn't significant coverage

Searching online I was able to find similar routine coverage, but no significant independent analysis. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Next.js is a fast-growing framework with a medium-to-high number of users,[10] being used (and financed!) by major high-traffic sites. That volume and visibility has to leave some trace in the newsphere; this is not your run-of-the-mill obscure library with little support from unknow authors. Vercel and Next.js have been noticed by Forbes,[11] german tech site t3n, [12][13] and other independent sources with some technical or contextual analysis. [14] [15]

Also I find trouble in nominator's argument that an interview with the author is not independent coverage. That would be the case if the interview was published by a media source controlled by the same or a connected company, but I don't see how that's the case with StackOverflow. An interview published by a third party is subject to independent editorial control, and provides evidence that the topic has been found interesting enough by an independent publisher to the point of giving it significant coverage in their website. Diego (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep, You forgot Nuxt.js which is based on Next and has less user share, but there's also AngularJS. I think the article is notable according to WP:NSOFT, with just those referencs supplied above. The references the article makes isn't a good reason to delete it, we can find others. Deleting the article would be unacceptable, at most Next.js could be merged into React (web framework) and Nuxt.js could be merged into Vue.js (AngularJS is definitely notable). This brings up a whole list of problems, though, and we would probably need to create a new page titled List of Node.js frameworks. Footlessmouse (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edit vote to speedy keep - subject of multiple independent published and printed instruction books as per 3rd notability option on WP:NSOFT. See Google Books results above; here are a couple, which suffice, on their own, to establish notability.^[1][2][3] Footlessmouse (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Footlessmouse (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The online sources provided thus far are equally poor quality to the ones I analyzed at the outset. The written books' authors don't appear to be widely cited, and the publishing houses aren't exactly O'Reilly Media. Leafing through the two books whose previews I was able to open, they seem to be full of poorly-written, unrestrained praise such as Next.js is a rising star of modern JavaScript. It is a powerful tool that can save a lot of time by doing all the under-the-hood processing required to bring a universal applications [sic] to life (page 1 of Next.js Quick Start Guide) or from [Next.js]'s official site, here are some points explaining why it's a good choice (second page of Chapter 6 of Advanced Web Development with React). I don't see any indication that these books contain any analysis of the subject beyond how-to information and lists of benefits that may as well be PR copy. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um??? Did you not read WP:NSOFT? It says it qualifies if it meets one of the criteria and it explicitly lists being the subject of multiple instruction books as one of the possibilities. There is no room for interpretation there. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Footlessmouse, NSOFT is an essay not policy. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, I feel dumb about that, I can't believe I didn't notice that. I strike my vote and have no real policy arguments. My statement about forgetting Nust.js stands. If this page is to be deleted, you must delete that one as well, which is objectively far less notable. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I still strongly oppose this delete. I furthermore believe no one even moderately familiar with the topic (or web editing in general) will be likely to agree it should be deleted. It is not only notable in that area, it is absolutely and unobjectionably vital to it. So here is the grand policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if the common rules for GNC get in the way of improving or maintaining the encyclopedia, policy dictates they must be ignored. Those familiar with the topic realize it is hard to find ill-defined reliable sources for certain topics in freeware, but enough information exists to leave it as at least a stub for now. Also, the previews you have access to do not allow you to determine whether the books are reliable, even if multiple mistake were found. The quality of the intro is irrelevant to the book and is obviously there to help make sales. Anyways, I highly doubt you will get the votes to remove the article and I firmly believe that it is anti-productive to keep it cycling through AfD. Thanks. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is clearly lacking. There is a few books about it, but I don't think they are enough on their own and weirdly one of them was canceled by publisher before it came out. So, there doesn't seem to be anything to establish notability. PS, for API's, especially ones related to JavaScript, there are usually books etc. etc. about them. Their "freewareness" really has nothing to do with it, and I say that as someone who does JavaScript development and has also never heard of this either BTW. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone wants to use only my book references rather than searching on there own, let me add a few more, I was only going by WP:NSOFT at that time (also is Springer Publishing a good enough publisher?)^[1][2] Here's one in Japanese.^[3]. I found eight other books by Packt Publishing, but am not including them here. There are plenty of books. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have rewritten the page cutting out most of the cruddy sources and replacing them mostly with the Springer source and the Smashing Magazine articles. I believe those are reliable enough. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Adamant1 and Rosguill: are either of you willing to re-evaluate in light of the entirely new article? It is totally new and is properly cited. At this point, I believe it does meet WP:GNG, with significant coverage in at least two highly reliable sources that are independent of the topic. It is therefore, presumed to be notable. If you still disagree, what else do you think it needs? From what I see, I have addressed all major complaints and see no valid reason it should be deleted. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't tell for sure because of the paywall, but from looking at the chapter summaries for the sources published by Springer, they look like they limit themselves to being a how-to guide. Same goes for the Smashing Magazine articles. I don't know that it's possible to cobble together an article on the basis of how-to's without resorting to original research.

  Looking through pages for other React extensions, I'm left with the impression that it would probably be more encyclopedic to try to cover them together in an article, but also recognize that at this point there's already quite a few of them and thus there isn't a clear target for merging content from Next.js, nor would it be trivial to try to merge the existing articles. I'm thus honestly not terribly insistent on deleting this article, although I think that it does fall shy of notability guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rosguill:Thanks for letting me know there's a paywall, for whatever reason, I do not have one, maybe I'm logged in, I'm not on my VPN. There is plenty of information in the springer chapters (there's two) I posted just a few things and I think it's a little past stub status now, have you reviewed the new article? I rewrote it? There is no original research there, the Springer textbook chapter on Next provide a good introduction with information on not only what it is but what React is and why Next is used and it is done so in a textbook form which is easy to paraphrase into encyclopedic form. I will continue working on it. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Question which part of "In this chapter, we will learn about a framework called 'Next.js' that is used to build applications that are rendered on the server-side" (Thakkar 2020 "Next.js") sounds like it is restricted to a how to only? I'm super confused about your entire response. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with Rosguill about the books not being much for an article, there was an AfD a while back for a very similar thing that resulted in keep because supposedly software that has multiple books specifically written about it is notable. At least that's what the keep voters said and the closer seemed to agree. I'm not sure what AfD it was or where the guideline about it is or if there even is one. Maybe someone else knows what I'm talking about. That said, if there is such a guideline or consensus about it somewhere, I wouldn't know where the line is or if chapters devoted to it in multiple books would count. It is something to look into though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Are you just saying that without reviewed the article, or are you claiming the article I have rewritten is worthy of deletion? WP:NSOFT is obviously what was discussed. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note This AfD has devolved into opinions editors have on what they think the contents of the sources contain and how much they can be used to say without them having looked through them. Let us discuss the article and it's criteria. It is no longer a stub, there is no original research, it establishes WP:GNG, what am I missing? Footlessmouse (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in article, which I reviewed and you had no of knowing if I did or not, aren't good enough to establish notability IMO. Which is why I was brought up a prior example where an article about a piece of software was kept because it had books written about it. For some reason though you think what happened in a past AfD is "devolving into opinion" and not a good thing to keep the article based on. Which, frankly is sort of bizarre, but whatever. So, I struck the comment out. Given that, I stick by delete vote. Since the sourcing isn't enough and there isn't another basis to keep the article on. Although, there might have been, but oh well. I don't feel like doing the useless, un-constructive back and forth or people trying to control the direction of the discussion in the way your doing, the inevitable (or already existing) bludging on your part etc etc anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Since I struck out my vote above earlier. It passes every single aspect of WP:GNG and does not fall into any what Wikipedia is not traps, I can find no valid reason to delete. Also WP:NSOFT might be just an essay but is a good guideline in lack of a specialty guideline and has apparently been used before. Finally, for everyone who would want to see it merged but can't find a redirect, how about React (web framework)? I will say nothing more (even though WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy). Footlessmouse (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to meet GNG with TechRepublic article and Springer Book, as well as the Stackoverflow blog. If stackoverflow blog is considered WP:RS/WP:IS, then I wouldn't reject it for the purpose of notability just because it is largely an interview of the subject or subject's author. Being interviewed in WP:RS makes the subject notable. Interviews are considered primary source with respect to factual information, not notability. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly wrong. The GNG explicitly says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The persons own words aren't "significant coverage that's independent of the subject." Plus, the information has to be secondary. I.E. a synthesis of primary material. A person talking about themselves is not secondary information. It's not reliable either, because first person accounts of things just aren't, and it has to be.--Adamant1 (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: I had removed this before, but upon further reflection, I added it back into the page. You might read up on the guidelines, as it can be used as a reliable source for some statements and not others, for instance, I used it as a reference for who the current CEO of Vercel is, which is in no way invalid. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Footlessmouse: Just an FYI, there's a difference between sources that can be used to support basic facts and ones that help establish a topics notability. For instance, Twitter is perfectly fine as a citation for a basic fact (although recently it needs another reliable source added with it). It doesn't work to use Twitter as part of an AfD discussion about notability though. Which is the important thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: my bad, I'm not sure why you even responded to the comment, then. Notability is established aplenty without reference to the interview. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as discussed in sources, Adding Server-Side Rendering to Your React Application (2020), chapter dedicated to the topic specifically at Next.js, the book, Next.js Quick Start Guide: Server-side rendering done right (2018), The Next.js Handbook, as well as Next.js 9.5 Improves Static Site Regeneration Performance, and Net News Ledger, and Next.js adds incremental static pages regeneration, and Next.js 9.3 Released, Improves Static Site Generation, and Next.js builder Vercel spruces up edge network. Thanks! Right cite (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Footlessmouse's improvements. Yes, being the subject of several independent books/book chapters means that the software is notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant new improvements in sourcing have been made during this discussion to establish notability Spudlace (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2020 (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.