Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/JavaScript

JavaScript
I am not undertaking this deletion proposal lightly. I looked through the Requests for deletion archives and if there was a deletion on a work of this size and history it did not jump out at me, I have been considering this deletion request for several days, and have tried for other solutions.

Using my alternate account User:JeepdaySock I have done some work on the book JavaScript. I think that it is great subject for a book, and that Wikibooks is a great place to host a work on the subject. When I began realizing the problems that I will outline below my first instinct was clean it up, an make it work. I even searched for a CC or PD work that could server as foundation for a new attempt (none found).

There are a number of problems with the book as it stands, none of which are sufficient to delete the book. I am only outlining a few as they server as symptoms to highlight the bigger issue.
 * Errors of unknown origin that are significantly different then published works on the topic dif
 * Abandoned works JavaScript/Functions and Objects 2
 * Comments of issues with no resolution Talk:JavaScript & Talk:JavaScript/Functions and Objects

The real problem is that JavaScript is a young language not fully set with in it's structure. It is constantly being updated JavaScript and it has a loose programing language (so there usually at least 3 ways to do anything). To complicate it even further because the script is actually run on the users computer it is dependent on the browser and update the user is using (each having different requirements and functions that will and won't work. So this means writing a work on the javaScript is difficult as best and is both time and application sensitive.

As this work does not have a completed body (notice significant red links) and it was started 9 years ago, there is little chance that the current structure can meet the present requirements of a book on the subject. I have read and looked at several books on JavaScript and did not find a consistent format or structure shared between multiple works. I have also searched for a CC or PD version that could server as a foundation to build on, there is no published static work (print book). There is however an online CC version at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Guide which seems to be a great tool, and is everything that you would want the book to be if it was here. (listed at Wikipedia External links)

There is potential for scaling this book back to tutorial but that need is met by the sister project Web Design/An Introduction to Programming with JavaScript.

In short this book has been in the works for 9 years, because the topic is continuing to evolve it's current state does not add value to Wikibooks or server the needs of readers. Any new attempt would need to start from a new beginning. The pieces of this work that do add value, are better executed and more current at other sister and CC sites.

My recommendation is to delete the work, and provide soft redirects to Web Design/An Introduction to Programming with JavaScript & JavaScript. Jeepday (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Check me if I'm wrong &mdash; it sounds like you're saying the book should be deleted because it's of low quality. I don't believe low quality is a valid reason for deletion.  I don't believe it should be a valid reason for deletion.  We don't want to set that precedent: it goes against the basic wiki concept of gradual improvement.


 * As it happens, I've been studying JavaScript for the past year or so. I think the most likely mistake to make in writing a book about it is to try to write a snapshot in time.  Even if we could produce a perfectly accurate snapshot, which seems unlikely, the thing would just change out from under us, and in any case the reader doesn't just want to know what the "latest" version is, they want to know what fluctuations in the language to watch out for; fluctuations both between browsers and between standards.  Perhaps those fluctuations should be the core principle guiding the design of a book.  I'd want to give a closer look to available resources elsewhere, as well as the existing book here, work out a plan for how to redesign the existing book, and work out how to transform the existing book into the new form.  I don't claim to have an abundance of free time in which to do this; I'm just saying it can be done, and I'll add it to my list of things to apply free time to when I occasionally have some to apply.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 04:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am saying the book is of low quality, and I agree that that is not a reason to delete it. I am pretty sure everyone will agree to those two points.


 * I am trying to point to the same thing you (Pi zero) said "Even if we could produce a perfectly accurate snapshot, which seems unlikely, the thing would just change out from under us". This book began when the public just started to accept and use the Wright brothers new product. Since that time there have been a few changes in the product, same basic principle, lots of the same words, but everything is different now, and still changing.


 * Wikibooks is place for textbooks that add Meaningful content. This work fails to meet that requirement. I agree that your description of what would make this book function would be a great idea. But for 9 years a pile of users have attempted the same goal you outlined... AND that is the reason for deletion, the subject is not stable enough for the group of available volunteers, to meet the expectations of a textbook.  Jeepday (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * All our books about changing languages/platforms/products/whatnot have some degree of the same problem. Most, if not all, of them take the snapshot approach.  In the particular case of js, a fundamentally different approach is called for.  Are you saying for nine years people have been trying to not use the snapshot approach?  I did read some of that book, early in my studies, and my memory of it (from about a year and a half ago) is that it did take a snapshot approach.  Is there evidence of attempts to take a different approach?  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As best I can tell, the 2004 format evolved steadily under several editors until 2010 when a new format Talk:JavaScript (not much different the previous) was implemented. Most of the discussion is lone comments about this or that being wrong. Every edit seems to have been the state of now. Talk:JavaScript does not seem to indicate any meaningful attempts at organizing a feasible long term work. The best single online resource I have found is https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Guide which use a foundation, with version updates approach; it is a CC community project in the Mozilla family.


 * If a fluctuation stable version as you are envisioning was created, how would you get past the need for a crystal ball? Jeepday (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That part's "easy". You avoid needing a crystal ball by documenting as-of-when each bit was up-to-date.  I distantly recall there are some general templates around the site for labeling pages with software version numbers; if those general templates were deemed unsuitable for this, variant generalized templates might be prepared, or customized templates for the particular book.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Still not seeing your vision; how is "as-of-when each bit was up-to-date" different from a "snapshot approach"/ JeepdaySock (discuss • contribs) 13:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To me, the 'snapshot approach' at its worst just says 'this is how it is', without mentioning variations in time and from browser to browser, and without saying as of when it 'is'. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with the book that I didn't see with other books on more stable or standardized programming languages. For the cases with the Javascript book, it needs more of an outdated tag or a plan to attract the attention of a dedicated editor who has time to contribute.  If you think it's a rewrite from scratch issue, it's not part of the deletion process since you can just rebuild the ToC, and write replacement content as desired. --Sigma 7 (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no reason for deleting the book. If you want to write about a standardized version of JavaScript, pick a version of ECMAScript and write about it. If you want to rewrite the book, start with some section today. --Martin Kraus (discuss • contribs)


 * Don't see a reason for this book to be deleted. I do see 100 reasons for the book to be improved though.  Be bold and do so if you feel that changes need to be made.  By all means if you think individual pages would be better off deleted then nominate those for deletion.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]]talk 21:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as I'm not a JavaScript programmer yet (though I'll have to learn it at school in the near future), I don't know if this book can be improved upon or not. However, even if it can't, that is not grounds for deletion. It still contains meaningful content that can be used in the future. ActionScript Programming, for example, is, in my opinion, an 'incorrigible' book, but there's still a lot of valuable content inside which I'll copy over to use in a 'fork' I started, Introduction to ActionScript 2.0. Kayau (talk · contribs) 00:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The book may have flaws, but it still proved itself to be a valuable resource for me. Actually, the reason why I noticed that this book has a request for deletion is because I have it constantly open in one of my browser tabs. I don't use it as my only source, but it's probably the one I used most. At least it's a good addition. So please don't delete it. --GGShinobi (discuss • contribs) 00:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)