Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rapid application development tools


 * 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   keep. –MuZemike 00:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

List of rapid application development tools

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedural nomination. PROD contested in IP comment on talk page. PROD was proposed by Hammersoft with this reason: all of it unsourced, target for spam, edit warring, etc. I can see reasons to delete and reasons to keep. Neutral. Pnm (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Addressing PRODder's justifications:
 * (1) "target for spam, edit warring". I take this to mean that "this is an article that is actually of real interest". Unlike PRODder, I consider this a strong reason to keep.
 * (2) "all of it unsourced". Almost every entry is wikilinked to a WP entry. Some are well-referenced, some mediocre, some in need of help. Take it up with the individual articles, please.
 * (3) "all of it unsourced". Or does PRODder mean that this list as a concept is a non-obvious invention. Well, it seems obvious enough to me, and to the 15,000 visitors a month who visit it. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Rapid application development starts with a definition, but it's very open-ended, and nearly any programming tool could be used with the methodology described. What exactly meets the criteria for inclusion in this list? Should the tool have specific functionality for RAD methodology? Should a reliable source say the tool is used for RAD? Here are some inclusions I question: FileMaker, IBM Lotus Notes, Zoho Office Suite, Qt, Visual Basic, Gupta, Zend Framework, Django. I grant that these are all application frameworks, what makes them "rapid application development tools"? Some prominent omissions I question: iOS, Windows Mobile, .NET Framework, Apache Struts. If these don't belong, what are the criteria? --Pnm (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Where Rapid application development is too mushy, I would suggest editing to firm it up. Explicit criteria for inclusion on this page would also be welcome. If you think individual items on the list don't belong, esp. if they are lacking RAD-specific sourcing here or in their own WP entries, then I would suggest that you delete them and provide your reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbes Goodyear (talk • contribs) 05:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've suggested two possible sets of criteria: (1) tools with specific functionality for RAD methodology and (2) tools which a reliable source says are used for RAD. Neither is good. But I don't see how anyone could "firm this up with editing" until there's a good definition of what belongs. --Pnm (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. According to AfD guidelines, this can be improved. This topic is notable as I see many reliable sources using Google Scholar for "rapid application development tools". PolicarpioM (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. A lot of software companies claim that their development tools are 'RAD' tools when they're not, so reliable independent sources are needed, but some of those in the list can be sourced and there's no reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment "CAN" be sourced and "ARE" sourced are entirely different. Also, simply linking a product to some other Wikipedia page counts as a self reference. This article has _zero_ references. Pnm is quite correct; anything could qualify as an entry in this article. How about MS-Access? How about Basic? 10 go to 20, 20 go to 10. Tada! I just wrote a program! Rapidly no less! This article as is is pretty useless. It's about as helpful as an article saying "List of oxygen using life on Earth". --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - As per Hobbes Goodyear, no valid justification given for deletion. Rapid application development is clearly notable and a list of tools is appropriate. Article needs improvement but that's not a reason to delete. --Kvng (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.