Sorry about that. I deleted my original post because I liked reddittor's phrasing better. But since you decided to reply to my post, I'll respond too. :-)
---
"And decided that said heavily-trafficked articles should be deleted as being unnotable, instead of asking for more citations."
Except that's the opposite of what happened. Read the notice: anyone is free to remove it even if the contents of the page aren't changed. Removing the notice stops the process. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion:
---
Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate, but that it does not meet the more stringent criteria for speedy deletion. If no editors object, nominated pages are deleted after seven days. An article may be PRODed only once. This process reduces the load on the articles for deletion (AfD) process, but should not be used to bypass discussion at AfD.
There are three steps:
1. An article or disambiguation page is nominated when an editor carefully reviews the article and inserts the {{proposed deletion}} tag by placing {{subst:proposed deletion}} on the page. This lists the article in Category:Proposed deletion.
2. If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed.
3. The article is first checked and then deleted by an administrator 7 days after nomination. It may be undeleted upon request.
...
To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion}} tag from the article
---
Personally, I greatly prefer that to the usual system I see: vague warnings about non-notability followed much later by a full AfD process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion). Take this as a wake-up call that the article needs some attention, not as a personal attack or an attack against a community.
This guy's requests for deletion look to be automated and on a massive scale. I can't agree that what he's doing is remotely appropriate, and while it's not an attack on node.js specifically, it's definitely an attack on the computing part of wikipedia in general.
