Node.js wikipedia entry marked for deletion for not being notable

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#General_notability_guideline" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#General_notabili...</a><p>The article in question has a single external reference: a page on the CommonJS wiki which basically just says that NodeJS exists. Add some real citations to the article and the issue goes away.<p>Edit: Some anonymous user removed the notice. Here's the old version of the page: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Node.js&#38;oldid=423542536" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Node.js&#38;oldid=...</a><p>Also, notice the sentences "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason" and "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." in the original warning.

I am not sure about being notable but it definitely does not read as informative in the sense for general knowledge (as said in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Node.js" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Node.js</a>).<p>It reads as a README file to get me started with Node.js which looks very similar to the original<p><a href="http://nodejs.org/" rel="nofollow">http://nodejs.org/</a><p>So a bit more effort may need to go into making this useful for public knowledge. (The Community section is not needed in my opinion) This is just my idea based on how the jQuery wiki page was organized.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jquery" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jquery</a><p>Notice how it actually explains the examples in more than one line. Again this is all observation.

Is it notable, though? Serious question.<p>I mean, Twisted and Tornado have <i>actual references</i>. (Eventmachine does not, but whatever.)<p>Node currently has two, one of which is a linkbait-y post on readwriteweb, the other is an extremely meager wiki template page. Ergo, <i>it isn't notable</i>.

I tried to add information about how Node.js is now part of the webOS SDK, but then it complained that someone else was now editing it.<p>And there was the first time I've ever tried to edit a Wikipedia page.

125 job offers for Node.js on Indeed.com, doesn't that make it somewhat notable? <a href="http://www.indeed.com/q-Node.js-l-United-States-jobs.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.indeed.com/q-Node.js-l-United-States-jobs.html</a>

any of you noticed that there was an entry citing that node.js is a "useless event-driven I/O framework" ?<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Node.js&#38;oldid=423637476" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Node.js&#38;oldid=...</a>

Let's not go nuts about this, OK?<p>Like it or not, Wikipedia is the web's jumping-off point for serious knowledge about a given subject, especially technical subjects, and having citations in the article gives people reasonable places to jump off to.<p>So don't spam the deletion discussion. Add good citations and references instead.

And then there was the day that the HN and the Wiki communities clashed.

The culprit: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mootros" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mootros</a>