Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boa (JavaScript engine): Difference between revisions

Line 43: Line 43:

:”’Delete”’ A FOSS project certainly isn’t expected to be covered in NY times or the Guardian. But there doesn’t exist anything even in lesser sources that would be compatible with [[WP:NSOFT]]. This does sound like an impressive project and congrats to the JaseW for building it and getting a part of it into V8. But Wikipedia notability just isn’t there, for now. – [[User:SD0001|SD0001]] ([[User talk:SD0001|talk]]) 15:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

:”’Keep”’ I agree with [[User:Neoeinstein|Neoeinstein]] ([[User talk:Neoeinstein|talk]]) that there are goings on that make Boa notable, especially the Temporal work at the moment. In response to [[User:Anonrfjwhuikdzz|Anonrfjwhuikdzz]] ([[User talk:Anonrfjwhuikdzz|talk]]) there is a New Stack article which mentions Boa that wasn’t on your list: https://thenewstack.io/xslt-debate-leads-to-bigger-questions-of-web-governance/ i believe the New Stack are independent. The presentation from https://webengineshackfest.org/slides/cross-engine_contributions_at_scale:_how_newcomers_accelerated_temporal_and_upsert_in_spidermonkey,_v8,_and_boa_by_jonas_haukenes,_mikhail_barash_&_shane_carr.pdf is also independent from the project and doesn’t include content from anyone who works on it (whether that confers notability or not is a different question). <!– Template:Unsigned IP –>— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.32.82.26|82.32.82.26]] ([[User talk:82.32.82.26#top|talk]]) 20:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC) <!–Autosigned by SineBot–>— [[Special:Contributions/82.32.82.26|82.32.82.26]] ([[User talk:82.32.82.26|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic.

*”’Delete”’. Fails [[WP:GNG]]. None of the sources rise to the level of independent significant coverage.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 15:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia’s content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not notable Uwsi (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Uwsi (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I am the creator of Boa, so I have a conflict of interest and will not add these sources to the article myself. However, there are multiple reliable, independent sources that cover Boa in detail, which helps satisfy WP:GNG:

The New Stack: “New Astro Releases Incorporates Sessions, New Astro Actions Tools” – coverage from a respected industry publication, mentioning Boa as part of a major release.

Medium (JavaScript in Plain English): “Boa v0.20 — A Major Leap for the JavaScript Engine” – detailed write-up of the engine’s progress, development history, and significance.

Academic paper from Vrije Universiteit Brussel (PDF) – cites Boa in the context of JavaScript engine research, showing its relevance in scholarly work.

These are independent sources providing substantive discussion, not trivial mentions, which helps establish notability per WP:INDEP.

I am only participating here to make sure editors are aware of these sources, not to influence article content. JaseW (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article from The New Stack is just a “release roundup” of JavaScript Rust tools that summarizes information found in the various projects’ release notes. The article has no information not found in https://boajs.dev/blog/2024/12/05/boa-release-020, which it heavily quotes from.

The JavaScript in Plain English article is not a “detailed write-up of the engine’s progress, development history, and significance”, but plagiarizes the aforementioned 0.2.0 release notes, even to the extent of occasionally copying the first person pronouns (“our”, “we”, etc.) that the release notes use.

The masters’ thesis (about a project that uses Boa) is a single paper referencing Boa which does not (on its own) convey or confer notability. Martey (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — There are some things going on that make Boa notable, including the recent work going on to support the ECMAScript Temporal APIs, of which Boa’s temporal_rs forms the underlying basis. Chromium Tracker

While a more minor player, I don’t see this as falling below the notability threshold that would suggest deletion is appropriate. Neoeinstein (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a single reliable/independent source for this that can establish notability? Right now the keep votes are from the creator which raises COI concerns and a vague argument that the package is somehow notable with a link to a chrome update page. This is my analysis of sourcing provided in this discussion:

[1] Programmer website that has user-submitted content. Cannot tell if there is any editorial oversight.
[2] Medium is a blog hosting service and unreliable WP:MEDIUM.
[3] A master’s thesis. Per WP:THESIS: “Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.”
[4] A link to a chrome/chromium feature addition. Chrome/Chromium may be notable but notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED and while a changelog may be reliable it offers no indication of notability.

Some of these sources are included on the main article now (2/12). The article also has these additional sources:

[5][6][7][8] 4/12 references are non-independent references to the boa dev site and don’t establish notability.
[9] A link to an archived javascript engine test page
[10][11] A video and a transcript of a conference presentation. I don’t think technical conference presentation confer notability but correct me if that is incorrect.
[12] Mozilla blog post that has no mention of Boa.
[13] Presentation slides from another technical conference.
[14] A github dev page which is primary/does not establish notability.

Unless other sources can be brought to the table, I don’t think this article passes the requirements for WP:GNG as there are no sources that meet WP:SIRS to establish notability. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A FOSS project certainly isn’t expected to be covered in NY times or the Guardian. But there doesn’t exist anything even in lesser sources that would be compatible with WP:NSOFT. This does sound like an impressive project and congrats to the JaseW for building it and getting a part of it into V8. But Wikipedia notability just isn’t there, for now. – SD0001 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Neoeinstein (talk) that there are goings on that make Boa notable, especially the Temporal work at the moment. In response to Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) there is a New Stack article which mentions Boa that wasn’t on your list: https://thenewstack.io/xslt-debate-leads-to-bigger-questions-of-web-governance/ i believe the New Stack are independent. The presentation from https://webengineshackfest.org/slides/cross-engine_contributions_at_scale:_how_newcomers_accelerated_temporal_and_upsert_in_spidermonkey,_v8,_and_boa_by_jonas_haukenes,_mikhail_barash_&_shane_carr.pdf is also independent from the project and doesn’t include content from anyone who works on it (whether that confers notability or not is a different question). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.82.26 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC) — 82.32.82.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment