Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote Telescope Markup Language

Remote Telescope Markup Language

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Restored after being PROD deleted on the grounds that it is mentioned in a few telescope manuals, but I still can't find much more than that and material written by the language's creators. I remain unconviced that this is notable. Reyk _YO! 17:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like this language has been discussed in detail in many reliable sources, including journal and news articles; not all are telescope manuals or from the creators. There's usable content for expansion about the language's history, structure, and current uses, so I'd say it passes WP:SIGCOV and merits a keep. ComplexRational (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have since added some sources. While the article may remain a stub, these sources seem to demonstrate notability (they are independent, detailed, and peer-reviewed). ComplexRational (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources added by ComplexRational show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and the ESA source describes RTML as a standard. The topic merits a keep per WP:HEY. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]