Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RESTful API Modeling Language

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. We need to WP:SOCK this article in the mouth, so it can then go to a WP:SPA and spend the rest of its days RESTing. No problem with re-creating this, provided multiple, independent, reliable sources are included. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note added later: It has been suggested to me that instead of delete, merge/redirect to Representational state transfer would have been a better result. My reading of the consensus (after discounting all the SPA/sockpuppet keeps) is that there were insufficient reliable sources to support the topic, and the same would have been true had the material been merged into somewhere else. Still, the real discussion here was whether to delete this article, not about the content of other articles. If somebody wants to edit Representational state transfer to include information about this topic, that would fall under normal editorial discretion (in other words, there's nothing in this AfD closure which would prevent somebody from doing that). Of course, editors of that page may object to the material for the same reason this article was deleted, but that's a content dispute, best resolved at Talk:Representational state transfer. If anybody wants to see the deleted content of this article for reference, ask me, or any admin, to recover the most recent version into your user space. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RESTful API Modeling Language[edit]

RESTful API Modeling Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author removed PROD, my original concern was "Does not appear to be a notable programming language. Only sources are not independent or do not discuss the subject in detail." Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: RAML is in fact not a programming language; it is a modeling language, as the article explains. More to the point, there are independent sources that describe RAML and its tooling in some detail, for example in Forbes magazine, as well as the ones already cited in the article. And surely the growing list of independent developers on github supporting RAML, and documenting their support in detail via readme pages, constitute an indication of notability.
Usarid (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just read the content of RESTful API Modeling Language, and the contents of the article seem to be reasonable. It's a good explanation of what RAML is, with links to the existing tools supporting it (created by people around the world). It also makes references to other related standards, which offers the reader the possibility of understanding the enclosing field beyond the standard itself, compare, combine, create.
I would keep the article for the reasons mentioned above.Nohorbee (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article needs work regarding inline links, but it shouldn't be deleted – just as described by Nohorbee. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that's from an essay. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article provides information about a legitimate standard with appropriate links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pspeter3 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just read the Forbes website link. I wish it was longer, since it looks pretty promising, but it's too short to count as significant coverage. And being used a lot on gitHub isn't exactly a claim to notability either. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does this article from Dr. Dobb's count? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: And how about this incredibly-lengthy exposition? Usarid (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't understand why having numerous independent github projects that are all about RAML doesn't qualify as evidence for notability. Many are clearly lengthy, significant works, they deal with RAML in great detail, plus their authors wouldn't have built implementations of RAML if it wasn't notable. Usarid (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article provides information about a legitimate standard with multipleappropriate links included in the article as well as cited in this discussion. The fact that the Forbes article is short hardly counts as a criticism given a mainstream publisher like Forbes usually only tends to cover notable topics. I believe multiple Github projects built on the RAML modeling language also shows notability because the number of independent developers using it as a baseline in their projects - if it did not have penetration or notability there would be fewer independent teams interested in building for it since no one wants to release software built on a standard that is not used. Finally as I mentioned above there are multiple independent publishers across media verticals (business, technical, news) including primary technical publications like Dr. Dobbs, technical news publishers like Programmable Web and mainstream media publishers like Forbes all covering the RAML modeling language showing broad interest aka notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crines (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added additional links to the main article.
  • Keep: Kin Lane a recognized expert on APIs and the assorted tools including modeling languages has written multiple times on his API Evangelist site which is the go to site for information on API related topics including API Design: Do You Swagger, Blueprint or RAML which is a look at the major modeling language choices including RAML and Hello World Product API With Blueprint, RAML And Swagger a detailed review of these same 3 modeling languages. I argue interest from a leading API Expert shows considerable notability. comment added by Crines (talk)
  • Keep: Thanks Narutolovehinata5 for pushing for establishing notability. From all the above independent and often expert-level sources, many of which go into considerable detail, it feels to me that that's established. Usarid (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article describes a notable innovation in the developing field of API management that obviously has followers not only across industry influencers and enterprise companies, but also within the developer community, which is evident with the growing list of Github projects. Please Keep.--Ivolazy (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment - Relisting this because it appears possible that some sockpuppetry may be occurring in which it is possible that the same user may be posting multiple keep !votes. Note the following revision histories in which five new user accounts have contributed primarily to the article and this AfD discussion: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Also, I have struck duplicate !votes from the same user accounts. NorthAmerica1000 02:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have opened a sockpuppet investigation: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Usarid. Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it. Thanks for filing the SPI. NorthAmerica1000 02:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - never mind the sockpuppet show, there is no evidence of notability, only one non-primary source. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Forbes article does in fact cover this subject and indicates it is significant. "Which is where RAML comes in. RAML (or RESTful API Modeling Language, is a concise, expressive language for specifying APIs. A common lingua franca and approach for the API set if you will." I think it's a niche subject and a merge to a parent subject might be worth considering if an appropriate one can be identified (API?). I don't think deletion is a good (appropriate) outcome. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure that qualifies as "substantial coverage." Flat Out let's discuss it 23:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Request for More Information - As the original creator of the article I would find it extremely helpful for Flat Out to explain why he feels that basically none of the cited content is valid from a notability standpoint. References from media across many areas have been cited here and in the actual article. For instance I don't understand how Dr. Dobbs a technical publication of some renown is not considered valid. I'm also wondering why interest by industry experts doesn't qualify and why ever increasing support from the developer community isn't notable. There are the other cited sources as well but a more detailed explanation would help me. I honestly believe in this topic area which is I'll admit newish but rapidly growing that the various sources myself and others have provided are excellent examples and in line with what I'd expect to find. What sources do you require to consider something notable? This is not a critism of your thinking it's not notable but a request so I can better understand your reasoning why it's not. Thank you for your thoughts. Crines (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I might be missing something, but I see 3 sources from the the RAML Workgroup (not independent) and one from Fielding, Roy et al that doesn't mention the subject at all but just confirms Modelling language exists. None of these 4 sources support the notability of the subject. There is a Forbes reference mentioned above, which (in my opinion) does not have the subject of the article as the main of the article. I don't see substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the quick response. please see the external links section which has multiple sources and in my comments above there's links to articles by Kin Lane a noted industry expert not only discussing the RAML modeling language but also others in this arena. I also linked to a large independent API tech company that includes a link to RAML as well as the others on their education site - this is a small reference at the moment but given the focus and size of the mentioner I think it actually has more wait than it would in other cases. There is also mention of many independent developers picking up RAML. Finally I'd note RAML is but one of 3 prominent API modeling languages which I believe should have pages (I link yo the other two in see also but have not started to add content because of the ongoing discussion here on RAML). Thanks again. Crines (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crines external links aren't references. If you have good sources for the content here or in the links, you need to cite them against the content they are supporting. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flat Out - thank you for that explanation and now I'm glad I asked. being new I did not realize the article is not taken in its entirety but as discrete chunks , each with a specific job to do and since I put so much context into the External Links section it isn't even being considered as source content by those saying it doesn't have enough citation data. this was not obvious to me because those people supporting the article seem to have taken the article in its entirety. i will endeavour to correct my structural mistakes tomorrow afternoon or anyone else familiar with the topic please feel free to do it if you have cycles before I can get to it. also relevant citations along with supporting content must be moved from this discussion to the main article as they are also not being used in the notability discussion. Flat Out again I'd like to thank you for helping me understand what is required in a quality Wikipedia article. I think with changes this article certainly is one and going forward I will not make the same mistakes. Life is about learning. Crines (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promised changes to Citations and Relevant Source Text coming Tomorrow - life got in the way of making edits the past 2 days. However I will have time at some point tomorrow to make the necessary structural improvements & additional content changes. Crines (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Been bogged down but additional citations will be added by Tuesday evening. Thank You Crines (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RESTful_API_Modeling_Language&oldid=1138272338"