Talk:Nuxt.js
 | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Notability similar to Next.js?[edit]
Next.js has been deleted repeatably because editors have claimed it isn't notable. If it isn't notable, can Nuxt.js be considered notable? Ben Atkin
Removal of deletion proposal[edit]
I have added multiple additional resources from notable online publications. I further object proposed deletion on the following grounds:
- The editor that added proposal didn't demonstrate enough technical background in subject matter of software development or information technology to be able to knowledgeably assert either notability or lack of.
- The article subject passes the Wikipedia:SET: see: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=nuxt or https://www.google.com/search?q=nuxt
The editor didn't observe Wikipedia:NEXIST in good faith which is evident by lacking the minimum legwork required to find the myriad relevant resources on subject matter online. --Bmarkovic.79 (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how Wikipedia:SET and Wikipedia:NEXIST in anyway explain how this is notable, they appear to be instructions on how to use Google, which I do use, and did use. Google Trends is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. My issue with it is that there are no citations in the article or in Google which indicate why this is anything other than a software project not reported on in reliable sources or reviewed in reliable sources. I see many guides on how to use it but no news reports or books covering the topic. I would suggest that this is not notable according to the notability guideline. However I don't really feel like pursuing the issue, so any improvements to the article would be great. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
In order to nip any more of these objections, I wish to point out that according to WP:NSOFT, being the subject of multiple published (in print) manuals or instruction books suffices to establish notability. Please see Google Book results for myriad of such instruction books that easily and permanently establish notability. Unless policy changes, the software is notable and I hope this addresses anyone's complaints. Thank you. Footlessmouse (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)