Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NodeBB - Wikipedia

(en.wikipedia.org)

Battle rages on. I've mostly given up trying to make a case for nodeBB as someone points out arbitrary rules or guidelines that fit their PoV and few of the participants fathom how modern software evolves. Perhaps they are right and nodeBB should get more coverage before it can get an article, but I'm going to suggest deletion of that horrid comparison article either way. I never look up software on WP, but the stuff that's there should be less misleading.

I started making an argument for nodeBB based on the various rules and guidelines but after reading the fifth wall of text I simply gave up. As the WP user 69.204.153.39 points out, the guidelines and whatnot are fairly bad. The others do have a point in that this is not the place to discuss changing the rules.

I can't help feeling that this is a catch 22. There are really no major blogs or sites dedicated to forums and the likes to use as a source. I searched for just that a month ago. Forums are probably regarded as outdated in the modern web but there are a lot of them out there. It seems strange that everything web is being modernised, but for forums people are happy to go with good'ol LAMP. phpBB3 is fairly new but it looks and feels like something ten years old.

Ah, well. Fun while it lasted. I hope you guys can get som good coverage and keep on fighting for the good cause. It's worth it.

(Apologies in advance as my first post here is about such a boring topic as Tapatalk. And the semi necro)

@tfraley touches the main problem; It's not that nodeBB doesn't work for your users or isn't better than TT - the users expect TT to work. They have used it for years as their goto app on mobile devices. Some might buy the claim that nodeBB works better natively, but quite a few are creatures of habit. Change is hard and some of us are looking to radically change the forum experience, which can be all the change users can handle at the time.

I'm looking to move from a boring but stable phpBB forum to something newer. In my search for a platform I stumbled upon nodeBB. I have to give you guys credit - this leaps and bounds ahead of all the boring PHP-based forums I have looked at. I'm still restricted by what users expect. I'm not sure I can sell missing TT support simply because it is an expected service right now.

In other words, the problem isn't technical, it's user expectance/experience. Users that don't agree that the latest and greatest is necessarily the best user experience.

@Danny-McWilliams said:

I know PHP has its flaws, as does SQL (hence non-sql databases have long been gaining in popularity) and I'm sure NodeJS probably does too (I'm no expert on it), but his opinion lacks any objective comparison. It's worth taking time to read opinion on the matter but you won't ever satisfy this guy if you make the switch, ever, even if everything is better tenfold.

I wouldn't group PHP and SQL together like that. PHP is a clusterfuck. I code it professionally from time to time and I dislike it a lot. I have coded some 20+ languages and while Perl can give you a proper headache, it's not as broken as PHP. SQL is a language and for what it aim to do, it's perfectly fine. It's RDBMS that are going out of style, not SQL per se. Relational databases do some things great and quite a few things not so great. RDBMS' have also dominated the industry for years. Thankfully the industry is now churning out products that do a task properly instead of trying to shoehorn any task into a specific product (I'm looking at you, Oracle!).

If you want to look up a cool database, check out http://neo4j.com/ I really want to convert a RDBMS based system to Neo4j to test it out. I should really test Mongo as well.

@julian No, but strangely enough it works with a reload of the error page.

Now that I have had a cup of coffee and some synapses started working again, I checked the dev console. I get a net::ERR_BLOCKED:BY_CLIENT.

Either way - problem is on my end and no posting before coffee! Apologies for the false alarm.

@Danny-McWilliams common sense does not apply to Wiki contributors!

Joke aside, there are rules and guidelines the nay sayers are basing their stance on, and saying use "common sense" is a logical fallacy. That said, it is rather frustrating that these people seem more concerned with denying nodeBB than filtering out bad articles and seeing the bigger picture.

I've looked at previous AfD and right now the prospects for nodeBB on WP looks grim. It's not a simple matter of having more votes for keeping. I've seen other articles get deleted for double the keep votes. That may be the outcome.

That will end with the same result as long as the sources found for nodeBB are the same; like I said, the main objection were notability. No word wizardry will fix that.

People should help spread the word and get coverage for nodeBB. That will help the cause.

While I see why the article could be deleted for valid reasons, most of the discussion in the AfD (look at me tossing WP lingo around!) was cherrypicking. Poor language or poor phrasing shouldn't result in deletion, it should result in editing or requests for citations. Most of the noise was because of sources and no matter how much one cited WP:NSOFT, people ignored it. WP now has so many various guidelines, rules and essays delving into facets that cherrypicking whatever fits your stance is bound to be a problem. I tried to argue that a more specific essay - one that is specific for software - is in contrast with the more general guideline, but not no avail.

I have little actual interest in nodeBB. I'm not even running it. I still think that this little exercise showed some interesting tendencies in the WP community. It's seemingly "cool" to stomp in on an AfD, toss off a one-liner to seem clever and then furiously defend the initial stance when confronted with it. Given the forrest of rules and guidelines, this is quite doable. Sow doubt is seemingly a valid technique no matter if you can back it up. I take offence by that. If WP demands sources to be found and said sources is lined up according to the rules (for instance searching Google News), any dismissal of said sources needs to be backed up. Unsupported claims that the source is so-and-so is just noise.

I love WP but I don't really like the subculture of some wikipedians.