Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RESTful API Modeling Language

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ivolazy (talk | contribs) at 22:47, 23 March 2014 (→RESTful API Modeling Language). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RESTful API Modeling Language

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]
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]
  • 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: 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RESTful_API_Modeling_Language&oldid=600946239"