Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JAXASS

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

JAXASS

  • delete. Not notable. There is nothing called JAXASS except for a newly posted blog entry. This article is a way of gaining acceptance for a newly coined term. Wikipedia is no place for original research and personal opinions. — (Nomination made by Sleepyhead81.)
  • keep There is something called JAXASS and its being defined as we speak. Just because you don't like the naming of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. THe domain names have been registered and a call for opinions is being devised. --Sleepnomore
    • delete. No, there is no widespread support of this term you have coined for yourself. Wikipedia is not a place to express your views or attract visitors to your blog. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a blog. Please use your blog to express your own views. And please create an account instead of posting anonymously. --Sleepyhead81 11:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC) — (Duplicate vote.)[reply]
  • keep There is no "widespread" support for AJAX either in the scope of the industry. AJAX was coined by Garrett for himself, so that invalidates your second argument. This is not simply "my" view, this is a view that has been expressed by many in the industry. JAXASS has been created out of the animosity of those supporters for REAL innovation with this technology instead of simply renaming the former technology something else. The current JAXASS call for opinions describes client-side support for standard messaging and WSE-n. I did create my own account and haven't posted anonymously. Just because you don't like this idea, or you have some affinity for AJAX doesn't mean that you should be able to squash information about opposing technologies. Your affinity to AJAX is proved by your own blog title "ASP, XML, AJAX, SQL, JavaScript, CSS, DOM. Marketing. 24SevenOffice", and several blog posts: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and the list goes on: [7] Your opinion on this matter doesn't qualify you to make decisions on what opposing technologies are allowed to exist in wikipedia, and which do not. You are free to blog about how much you hate JAXASS, but that doesn't negate its existence. --Sleepnomore — (Duplicate vote.)
    • So if I am against Ajax and make up a new acronym on my blog it should be added to wikipedia? That is the key argument here. If JAXASS is added then every guy can coine these little acronyms and theories and have them added to Wikipedia. Please read [What wikipedia is not]. — (Sleepyhead81 forgot to sign.)
      • Comment Not unless it culminates into a real technology. I have three very influential Microsoft MVP's who have joined me in creating the initial call for opinions on JAXASS to replace AJAX. The difference between simply coming up with an acronym and coming up with an acronym for a competing technology is completely different. In the same line of argument, if I'm against Ruby, and I can make the argument that it doesn't have widespread support, should I just go around making calls for deletion of any wikipedia article discussing Ruby? There was no widespread support for the Betamax videocassette, but you can find information about it on Wikipedia, and its a product none the less. This is not the forum for you to voice your opinion on a technology by deleting every bit of information you find on it. --Sleepnomore
  • delete, is nonsense. Burschik 12:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment there were many topics that were nonsense in their day but were later shown to be gosple truth [Galileo] is one such example I've commented on below. The world being round was yet another such example.
      • As hoary and worn out example as it is irrelevant - Skysmith 09:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment Its hardly irrelevant in context of Mr Burschik's comment that it's nonsense to him. Valid analogies often do sound worn out -- mostly to those who are on the receiving end of the incontrovertible truth for which they cannot argue against.
          • Wikipedia is not a vehicle for breaking news or for dissemination of emerging new truths. It is not Wired's "memes on the rise" section. It is an encyclopedia. As such, it a vehicle for presenting generally accepted facts. Articles on controversial or disputed topics are accepted when there is a substantial body of people that accept them. We would not have accepted an article on the Copernican world system when it was first proposed. Only when it became clear that there was widespread belief in the Copernican world system, then the existence of this belief would then be an encyclopedic fact, to be reported neutrally along with the more-accepted Ptolemaic system. In any case, comparing JAXASS with Galileo seems a little... immodest. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • comment While I don't purport JAXASS to be a meme on the rise, I would point out that your argument falls flat when comparing against other topics such as
              Branch Davidian
              which has no widespread beliefs, but still retains its status in wikipedia. Instead, it has a warning stating that its neutrality is disputed. This seems to lean much more toward a neutral point of view than to simply delete the topic based on the bias of several AJAX-zealots and sockpuppets who were asked to defend AJAX against the competing specification presented with JAXASS. Your insistence on what is immodest is a matter of opinion. JAXASS is not an emerging truth as the technologies surrounding JAXASS have been available since 1998. If you consider a 7-year old technology to be emerging, you are mistaken.
  • delete, or merge into
    AJAX as alternatives. Especially since "JAXASS was created as a direct antagonist" to AJAX. Mmmbeer 13:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Not yet notable and the article is pure POV to the point of being a soapbox. "techno-weenie?" NOT encyclopedic! Whether AJAX should be listed is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a forum for hashing out standards or conducting software holy-wars. Robert A West 15:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment see my comments below concerning being encyclopedic. The standard is not being hashed out here. Its being hashed out between several individuals at www.jaxass.org. This isn't a holy-war either and I resent your use of that term in light of today's political climate. People lose their lives in holy-wars. Apple and Microsoft were involved in a struggle that is well documented. Sun and Microsoft were involved in a struggle that is well documented. Just because its contested does not call for its removal and exile.
"Patrick Naughton, an engineer at Sun, had become increasingly frustrated with the state of Sun's C++ and C APIs and tools."
Having an axe to grind doesn't disqualify something from its useful place on Wikipedia.
All of you are reaching at this point. No one has made a valid, unemotional case for deletion of this topic. At best, you can now join me in editing this topic to match the current state of the technology and help me maintain the topic as it grows in popularity.
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. --ZappaZ 02:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The term encyclopedic keeps popping up, so lets define that from [8]
Main Entry: en·cy·clo·pe·dic
Variant(s): also en·cy·clo·pae·dic /-'pE-dik/
Function: adjective
of, relating to, or suggestive of an encyclopedia or its methods of treating or covering a subject : COMPREHENSIVE <an encyclopedic mind> <an encyclopedic collection of armor>
How can you suggest comprehensive coverage without inclusion of terms so consequential to the industry. 50 years from now, when someone looks back at wikipedia, how can they get the full picture without inclusion of this term?
Alternatively, lets define encyclopedic from the very system we are debating on:
Encyclopedia - An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia/encyclopædia) is a written [compendium] of [knowledge].
compendium - A compendium is a comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge. A compendium usually contains principal heads, or general principles, of a larger work or system.
knowledge - Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori). Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value.
Based on this, your own definition of encyclopedia claims to be comprehensive - containing the full body of knowledge. And by knowledge, we are to include something such as JAXASS, which, in isolation is of lesser value in your opinion.
This is no different than the work of [Galileo]. This is a hotly contested and widely controversial topic. Many refuse to have it published as it goes against the core of what you believe in -- despite having truth and backhand support from many true technological intellectuals. And now you hold a 5-day inquisition where I'm forced to try to defend myself simply because I published a truth that you don't care to hear. As cardinals in the inquisition, you would have been threatening [Galileo] with torture until he begged for forgiveness and recanted his findings.
You state this isn't encyclopedic, but I say wikipedia isn't encyclopedic without [JAXASS] as a topic that will continue to expand in the next few months and years to come.
  • delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox specifically states that Wikipedia articles are not for "proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words." I believe this should in itself be enough support for deletion, with no further discussion, but so much more support can be found at What wikipedia is not
  • comment And the fact that AJAX was defined a month after being posted on a blog, and before widespread adoption of the word was in place doesn't bother you? There was no hot contestation of that term as it was placed on wikipedia. The original idea wasn't posted on wikipedia. The original idea was conceived locally between several technology professionals, manifested on my blog, and only then brought to the forefront in [wikipedia]. I'm not proposing a new solution here, the solution is already proposed on my blog. This topic is here, just as any other piece of knowledge, to make wikipedia comprehensive. Also, we are not defining terms here. This topic details the information known about an existing technology. --Sleepnomore
  • comment. Clearly this article should be deleted.

"Wikipedia is not a democracy". All issues brought up by those voting to delete have been addressed with comments and are invalid reasons for deletion. Several topics of similar circumstances exist without contestation on wikipedia. --Sleepyhead81 12:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment. Clearly this topic should remain. --Sleepnomore
  • comment. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but "The votes are a means to gauge consensus", and the consensus is indisputably and overwhelmingly for deletion. Especially considering that you are incorrect in asserting that "all issues....have been addressed". For instance, "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable". In order to assure a neutral point of view, in my opinion you would have to significantly rewrite the article. Bear in mind, this just seems to be the one objection you haven't attempted to refute. You've addressed most of the other objections, but obviously not to anybody's satisfaction but your own. I don't even think you'd find consensus for a rewrite, but that might be one compromise approach you could pursue.
    • comment. This from the same guy who vandalized the page and then tried to put it back as he found it? A neutral point of view is definitely possible with this topic should we start discussing the changes rather than deleting information simply because you like another technology better. I said it before (see below) and I'll say it again, I'm willing to come up with a neutral solution that better suits the needs of those around, but I'm not willing to concede that deletion is the appropriate response to this topic. --Sleepnomore
      • comment. NPOV has to do with articles themselves. You don't like what I have to say, so you attack me. It's a microcosm of your whole JAXASS concept. Can we expect a Wikipedia article from you about every single thing you dislike? Where does it stop?

Please take this back-and-forth somewhere else, such as user talk pages. This discussion is for the article, not for disputes between users. android79 03:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • comment. Actually it's been kind of fascinating to see the one and only proponent of this article "in action" as it were.
  • comment Please add comments at the end of the article. This vote for deletion is for the entire article - not specific items in the article. --Sleepyhead81 19:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment much like the deletion for your companies advertisement was called for deletion but failed for whatever reason. Clearly you lost that vote 3 to 0 but the article . I'm replacing my comment at the top so its clearly visible to the administrator and replacing the comment type as rewrite --Sleepnomore
  • Keep Is there even one valid argument against it? It's every bit as valid as so many other items here, I honestly can't believe that deleting it is being debated this hotly. -- Vote by user 24.214.184.231
    • comment Unfortunately this is yet another time you are wrong. This was not a vote by me
      • comment. Funny how that user also added a link to your blog as well. The user was: [9]. --Sleepyhead81 15:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment Which if your ever-so astute mind would pay attention, I speedily removed. If you look at the talk page for JAXASS, you'll see why. You continue to be wrong and grasp at straws. You've reverted to playing a guess-who's-who game rather than debate your ideas for deleting this topic. You still fail to make a valid point. I would also point out that before I even started this topic on wikipedia, I looked up
          AJAX and saw someone placed an external link to my blog before I decided to post my own article about the topic. While I didn't add that blog post to the links section initially, I later returned and modified this entry so it looked cleaner. If you'll note in the AJAX history since my AJAX=FRAUD blog came out, there have been several posts to that page that made the same argument I did. Such as "ajax is not a new approach"-[User:12.33.211.29], "what this link said" -[User:219.95.215.178], "Definitelly not new to us, we have used in various interactive tasks including server-push (experimental implementation of publisher subscribe)." - [User:63.166.226.84], etc. I suppose you would attribute all of those to me as well. But once again, you'd be wrong. I find it funny that you are even acting in this capacity to ask that a topic be deleted when you have overzealously used Wikipedia as your own advertising platform -- adding links to 247 office everywhere that you possibly could. Wikipedia is not your personal opportunity to put up ads for your company. Sleepnomore
          00:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I can't see there has been a rewrite of the article. Only minor changes has been done. Besides, this vote for deletion is regarding whether 'JAXASS' should be included in wikipedia or not. --Sleepyhead81 15:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Obviously no community support for this. One person using wikipedia to try to gain legitimacy for a non-notable idea. Vote by User 80.58.11.107.
    • comment so far, I've managed to gain the support of at least 4 people with myself. - Sleepnomore
  • delete Honestly you can't expect to be taken seriously with that offensive name jaxass...85.101.166.181 18:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I don't expect anything other than to create a technology. Its up to you to take the name for what its worth. If it makes you sleep any better, one of the most well-feared/respected remote adimiinstration products was named Back Orifice and it had a very offensive name and logo. Sleepnomore 22:39, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • comment Respected? You sound like a hacker. A trojan horse may deserve an article just as a disease does. Is your product in that category? On second thought, I don't wanna mess with you now that my IP is exposed.
  • comment. Can someone please make a decision on this vote? Sleepnomore is not only advocating his point of view but has now began repetitive vandalism of this page by adding his comment at the top of the page. New comments go at the end of the article. --Sleepyhead81 18:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a lot of work, but it should exist. Mark it with a "Current Events" tag. Edit it yourself if you feel that a biased POV is being introduced. Perhaps this article and other articles like AJAX need to be merged into an article about the ongoing development of this sort of software (I don't know what term to use, and I don't care, because VFD pages are about the merits of the article as an encyclopia entry, not the viability of the subject matter of the article). If we delete this article, what happens when a user out there in the world comes to Wikipedia looking for information on this topic, which he or she encountered in some other context? Users are developing a reasonable expectation of finding reliable information about a wide range of topics here. When no article exists for a topic, they end up disappointed. We should seek not to disappoint. I say keep this article, but bring it up to standard. Deleting is so permanent. If you wonder what my credentials are to support this opinion, I have a BA in History and am an U.S. Army officer engaged in the defense of freedom (location immaterial) that makes it possible for projects like Wikipedia to exist. I would like to see some of the delete proponents state their bona fides so that we can evaluate how much weight to give their opinion on this structure-of-the-Wikipedia discussion (as compared to the propensity to discuss the relative merits of JAXASS, JAVA, et.al.). And lets remember to assume good faith --Mddake 23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • rewrite I've modified the contents of this article over the past few days. I've removed several of the objectionable items and added additional material. Sleepnomore 17:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • comment Since adding this comment Sleepyhead81 has vandalized it four times (see history). He has removed this comment and changed the text of it in all cases. Furthermore, my article was completely wiped by him and it had to be restored by someone else. This has gotten out of hand. This article deserves to stay and the VfD needs to be removed immediately. Sleepnomore 21:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • comment. You can make comments and state your view - but please do not lie. I have never wiped out the JAXASS article. This vote for deletion page follows the talk page guidelines which specifically says: "Proceed vertically: Within each topic, the further down the contribution to talk, the later it was made.". So your comment should go at the bottom of this page. Please do not move it to the top as it is against the guidelines. --Sleepyhead81 07:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment - I'm no more lying about your wiping the page than you are lying about other contributors. My page was wiped twice by an anonymous IP. I can speculate it was you just the same as you can openly speculate that the other "keep" comments are my sockpuppets. In the spirit of NPOV, I'll keep my comment down here although I highly disagree with your agressive edits. In the future, if you have a problem with my wiki-behavior, I suggest you use my talk page and 'REQUEST' that I change the behavior, citing wikipedia policy with links. Sleepnomore 08:03, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
          • comment***** Hey Jaxass - yeah YOU. I deleted your bs page, knowing that it would get automatically restored instantaneously because this IP address is banned from deleting. You accusing someone else is just par for the course. You have proven yourself not only to be unwilling to listen to reason, but also to be unable to recognize it. You are obviously on a crusade and to not delete YOUR article (yes, yours, and only yours) is to let wikipedia go to the dogs, so to speak.
  • Strong Delete - it's a software project whose offical website doesn't even provide a way to download the code - this is not notable. Come back when you have 1000 users. JesseW 09:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - AJAX itself was created a month after Garrett "coined the term". It wasn't notable, it didn't have 1000 users (at least not calling it AJAX), and didn't have a download. Once again, a swing and a miss at a real reason to delete this entry. Sleepnomore 13:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • comment*** "swing and a miss", condescending and POV
  • Delete. Self-promotion, premature. --Michael Snow 03:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Original research. Self-promotion. --213.179.58.29 08:33, 3 August 2005 (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 an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JAXASS&oldid=1142209126"