This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 162.239.4.142 (talk) at 19:21, 22 November 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:21, 22 November 2014 by 162.239.4.142 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)API Chaining
- API Chaining (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)
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 /(contrib) 02:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - McMatter /(contrib) 02:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - McMatter /(contrib) 02:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Well, that, block evasion and sock/meat puppetry... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is the responsibility of editors to separate issues with user from informationOrubel (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- It may be the case that there is some peer review involved in what you say but none of the references in the article talk about API chaining short of a mention in a title of a scheduled talk during a trade show. This one is a list of speakers at a conference it doesn't even talk about API Chaining. The last one is not a source but a place to download the source code for the grail toolkit. These do not qualify as Reliable published Sources. WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG have not been met with the sources provided, if there are journals or tech magazines which have covered the subject they would do much to move this into a notable software. - McMatter /(contrib) 17:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- You do realize you didn't look at the slideshare notes which have tons of additional information on 'api chaining'. Again it is the editors lack of trying to FIND the information that is to blame... not the user. The rules have all been followed. You just have an agenda. And once this is deleted, you can bet I will have this reviewed for your lack of effort in investigated this properly.Orubel (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- You obviously have a Conflict of interest in this matter and have a hard time Assuming good faith, with weak threats of retribution and accusations of witch hunting.- McMatter /(contrib) 18:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- As the creator of the pattern that meets WP:NSOFT requirements, how am I WP:COI? We just seem to have a difference in opinion of what the WP:NSOFT meaning of 'common sense' is as it applies to an existing work that has been peer reviewed on multiple occasions, has online documents that meet WP:NSOFT guidelines but you have stated don't (but only failed to see), exists in an existing software project (another WP:NSOFT guideline I might add and you state repeatedly issues with USER. It seems that you are the ones guilty of WP:HERE and WP:TE 162.239.4.142 (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your taking Reliable published Sources out of context... see software guidelines for inclusion and notability . You also neglect WP:AUD as this must be taken into consideration as there are limitations to magazines publishing scientific work like this... as such, conferences are where this is done. Hence the 'common sense' rule in WP:NSOFT. SpringOne is not a 'trade show'... its a software developer conference for Java tools, software and development principles... all of which are open source and requires peer review to be accepted. Links are provided for notability. The article provides information; if you actually look at the presentation, it mentions api chaining in the notes. Wiki guidelines do NOT require magazines for software. Software and software concepts are presented at conferences and they get in to conferences through a peer review process. Read notability guidelines for software --Orubel (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have reviewed your comments and your interruption of the policies I believe are still incorrect. That being said it is not I that decides the fate of this article it will be the community.- McMatter /(contrib) 18:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes and WP:NSOFT states to use common sense. If you are using USER actions to judge 'information' you are not judging information on criteria alone