The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The participants to this debate are reminded to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]) and to discuss issues, not editors. The problem that should be addressed here is whether API Chaining is a notable subject, as verifiable through references in reliable sources. There are no such references currently in the article: a toolkit, a list of speakers (?), a speaker schedule (?), and a set of slides. Hence, this feels WP:GNG (or any other specialty guideline). Note to Orubel: I understand your frustration, but creating articles on WP is a very tough thing to do. I suggest you hang around a bit and contribute to some existing articles to get the hang of it all before trying again. You'll see that things are going to be much easier then. Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

API Chaining[edit]

(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]

Editor lacks WP:NPOV. From conversation below and on user talk page, editor obviously is practicing WP:TE and cannot separate user issues from content. Editors need to remember WP:HERE. Suggest re-evaluation.Orubel (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with my behavior, please take it up at ANI and I will defend myself there. This is not the place for it. Also, you need to sign your name. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:40, 23 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)~~ I should not have brought this up here and I will apologise to Orubel for doing so. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, editor lacks WP:NPOV. User and information are two separate issues. Orubel (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]
Delete I don't care anymore. My other material has been removed by editors, I have constantly been under attack. Just delete everything. Orubel (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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[1]. This one [2] is a list of speakers at a conference it doesn't even talk about API Chaining. The last one [3] 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 ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already had several editors break the WP:BITE rule by quoting 'ignorance of rules isn't an excuse', by blocking me when trying to respond, by trying to delete my pages when I am blocked, by casting aspersions and by making statements about the USER instead of the content when making decisions about whether to delete. So yes, one can saying I am beginning to see how process (or lack thereof) works. WP:AGF is supposed to be on both sides. And there is a distinct lack of follow through as shown by the other users comments here. Orubel (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However... A conflict of interest does not address the fact you neglect to see information where it is available. I just presented you with information which is clearly present that you missed; you responded by stating I have a conflict of interest. That is not a valid argument. That is also not a WP:NPOV. We delete based on information provided. Information has been provided and you mistakenly missed it; I pointed out your error and you state I am misguided. Am I the one who is misguided for pointing out your error? Orubel (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your taking Reliable published Sources out of context... see software guidelines for inclusion and notability [4] . 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)[reply]

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 ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 Orubel (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the closing admin, based on this edit and this acknowledgement, Orubel (along with creating the article) states that he is the creator of the pattern that is the basis for his claim that this is notable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the closing admin, above content is out of context. Notability statement is about slidedeck given at SpringOne, a peer reviewed conference. Above editor only read what he wanted to read. Orubel (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in arguing with you on it but what context can you add to "As the creator of the pattern that meets WP:NSOFT requirements"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No... it seems like you do want to argue. But if you insist, WP:NSOFT states that you use 'common sense' in evaluating. The first point in the list of notability requirements is peer reviewed materials. All conference materials are peer reviewed. You selectively are choosing to ignore ALL these even though they are attached to the article and are acceptable notable materials.Orubel (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, let's say I'm going to argue. It's your comment not mine. Did I misquote you in some way? Are you not the creator of the pattern? Isn't that pattern the basis of your claim that it passes WP:NSOFT? Are you saying that you meant to say that you were the creator of the pattern that, following a peer-review, was incorporated into material at a conference about the subject-matter itself which is thus the basis for your claim that this passes WP:NSOFT? WP:NSOFT is an essay not a policy or guideline and so the guideline issue of "independence of the subject" is still important to consider, do you agree? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Notwithstanding the accusations above, let's get back on topic and look at the merits of API chaining as a technique. As I pointed out before, there is something of interest here, but it's still too early to tell whether it will be widely adopted. As it stands, I would include it elsewhere as a short section under the article on API or simply delete as there is not enough WP:NPOV verifiable evidence to support it as an article in its own right. I would also suggest that another author aside from Orubel take this on to avoid WP:COI. Mediavalia ^talk 12:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence of independence from the subject in the sources provided. The first source simply a link to the toolkit. As to the other two sources, without some more details, it seems like the creator spoke at one conference along with dozens of other speakers and then spoke again at a single seminar. The only independence it seems is because the conferences invited said speaker to speak. WP:NSOFT is also an essay not a guideline, one that's been around for four years and never elevated and the reasoning here does not support elevating it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be good to get further input on this from other editors. You have already made your position abundantly clear Ricky81682! Mediavalia ^talk 09:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a little unnecessary. He's just as entitled to his opinion as anyone else --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - written in haste earlier. No offence meant. Just trying to get wider input into the debate. Apologies. Mediavalia ^talk 12:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.