Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/API Chaining

API Chaining

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Was prodded and removed by spa account with no improvment. AGF I have nominated the article for discussion to allow the community to discuss the fate of this article. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing this technique. It is discussed in the blogs, but it is probably WP:TOOSOON for reliable sources to develop about this topic. Without any RS, even a selective merge to method chaining seems problematic. --Mark viking (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Cannot find any reliable sources on the subject. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an article, this is pretty awful. I'd have hoped that any geek up with things enough to be aware of API chaining was also capable of writing tolerably well, but evidently not.

It's a new technique, so there's not much out there as yet, but it is a technique with some traction behind it and a clear definition. We should keep this, for the benefit of the encyclopedia.

It's inevitable that the article will be deleted. It's a creation by a new editor who's already guilty of the worst wikicrime of all, lese majeste against the admin posse. It's also so obscure, technical and poorly written that no editor, other than a specialist in the field, has a hope of seeing the point to it. As such it's hard to generate the enthusiasm for the total rewrite that would be needed here. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that, block evasion and sock/meat puppetry... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the responsibility of editors to separate issues with user from informationOrubel (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Yes, it's an interesting technique - there are other ways of doing something similar, notably in HATEOAS which does URL mapping, but this technique seems more elegant. But it's early days and no real standard has emerged. I also think we should include it somewhere with a view to expanding it later on, should it gain more traction. Perhaps include as a section under the API article?Mediavalia (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to WP:NSOFT requirements, the first requirement is discussed in reliable source; large conferences where conference materials are peer reviewed meet this criteria. Conference materials are always peer reviewed for acceptance and the bigger the conference, the more reliable the source and the larger the peer review for acceptance.. SpringOne is one of the largest Java conferences in the world and conference materials were reviewed by a group of peers. APIDays was also peer reviewed as was Grails API Toolkit in which functionality exists. Orubel (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]