Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RESTful API Modeling Language

RESTful API Modeling Language

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(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:~~ 3Scale a leading and completely independent provider of API Tools and a Services references RAML on their API education site APICodex: http://apicodex.3scale.net/content/Schema_Modeler comment added by Crines (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~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]