Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RESTful API Modeling Language

RESTful API Modeling Language

(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]