Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RDF query language


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

RDF query language

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It doesn't seem worthwhile to have a page about the generic concept of RDF query languages, since SPARQL (or, if you prefer SPARQL/SPARUL) has been the dominant such language since nearly the beginning. No other RDF query language has an article on the English Wikipedia, for what it's worth. All of the limited information on this page can - and already does - fit into the Resource Description Framework article. (By the way, "RDF query language" should not be confused with RDQL, which stands for "RDF Query Language", a specific - though not widely-used - such language.) Yaron K. (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Yes, SPARQL is the "dominant" query language. A qualifier which, by its very form, indicates that this is a broader topic. You clearly want rid of the article though, previously you were trying to merge it to the RDF article - where space would be an issue.
 * Yet again, I fail to see why WP is always so hostile to SemWeb topics? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by space being an issue, given that, as I noted, the main RDF article already holds basically all the information contained in the "RDF query language" article. As for why a lot of Semantic Web-related articles have gotten deleted: this is out of the scope of discussion, and I can only speak for myself, but my view is that, from 2006 to 2010 or so, a lot of people got excited about the Semantic Web and wrote a lot of articles containing redundant, contradictory and irrelevant information, and speculative musings, that resulted in much more content than was (or is) justified. Perhaps the worst-offending articles have already been deleted, but you can see Social Semantic Web for a prime example of what I'm talking about. Yaron K. (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The nom has given no policy-based reason why this should be deleted. A policy-based reason for keeping the article is provided by a quick WP:BEFORE style search that shows multiple independent reliable sources that discuss RDF query languages in depth, e.g.,:
 * A Comparison of RDF Query Languages
 * Web and semantic web query languages: a survey
 * RDF Querying: Language Constructs and Evaluation Methods Compared
 * W3C RDF Query Survey
 * Reading through some of these shows that SPARQL, while a popular RDF query language at the moment, represents but one branch of of the RDF query language tree. With the sources above, the topic well passes notability thresholds per WP:GNG. The article itself could use more development and better sourcing. But with the sources above and others not listed, the article has WP:POTENTIAL for improvement. A notable topic and an article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to get nitpicky, but all of these comparisons you linked to are from 2006 or earlier - which is not surprising, since that was right before SPARQL started to dominate the field. Of course, just because (say) SeRQL is no longer in use doesn't mean that it shouldn't get mentioned, but there's clearly only a limited amount of notable-for-Wikipedia information about the SeRQLs of the world. If you want a policy-based reason, how about WP:NOPAGE? This to me seems like a case where we have to "weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." Yaron K. (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That the sources are older is no strike against them; they are still independent, reliable sources. Because of this, notability of the family of RDF query languages is not temporary, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. We should not simply discard the historical development of the topic for the newest shiny, per WP:RECENTISM. While SPARQL should be given due weight, the sources above show there is plenty to say about RDF query languages in general. We're going to have to disagree about WP:NOPAGE. Based on the sources, there is no reason that this could not develop into a larger article. --Mark viking (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly know about NOTTEMPORARY; my point was just that there's not much more to be said about any of these query languages. Clearly we disagree on that. Yaron K. (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, I must be getting old. I remember when there was no SPARQL and everyone was implementing and using RDQL, iTQL, and SPO, in notable applications like Fedora Commons (I think they have dropped RDQL, but still had iTQL and SPO last time I checked, because they are easy languages unlike SPARQL). John Vandenberg (chat) 02:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Article basically acts as de-facto disambig/list page for the various RDF query languages. RDF query language is a notable concept and the page serves as guidance. SPARQL is not only one RDF Query language there exist others. The notability of this concept is proofed by a simple Google scholar search with thousands of result and its own w3 specification. There are other RDF Query languages researched/developed in the scientific community. The term is clearly used in scholary discussions ad papers to describe query languages for RDF Data. This way the subject satisfies WP:GNG and the guidelines in WP:LISTN and WP:DPAGE. That only few other RDF query languages have a WP article is not relevant per the aforementioned guidelines. The article should therefore be kept. Dead Mary (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Slight correction: no other RDF query languages have a WP article. Yaron K. (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahh thats right, no true one. But my argument still stands. I also think at least RDQL (currently a redirect to this article) could also warrant an own article, as it is pretty notable too. Dead Mary (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I added some actual RDF Query languages in the article + source. Dead Mary (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I've expanded the article a good bit beyond the stub it was and added secondary sources. --Mark viking (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work! I think based on the academic sources which have been linked here and have now been inserted into the article it should be clear that this is a notable subject discussed in plenty of academic journals and publications. Dead Mary (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  07:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Comments on the edits since nomination?  Sandstein  18:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability does not go away with time, even in computer science. Something notable in 2006 (as shown by sources) is notable now (with those same "old" sources). Just because one language became dominant doesn't mean we should ignore everything else and the history of language development. The article currently has material (with sources) for the properties of these languages and the language families. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2016 (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.