Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BXML

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 of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BXML

This is recreated material which underwent an AfD here in september (decision was to delete), and was speedy deleted a few days a go for being reposted content. The content has improved somewhat since then, but being reposted, I thought I'd put it up for AfD again. FireFox 15:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep/rewrite as W3C have recommended it being adopted as an official status.(pdf, see conclusion). Bjelleklang - talk 16:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Your link refers to "Binary XML", not the article's topic. "Backbase" appears nowhere in the document. I don't see the connection. -- Perfecto 20:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. Merge into Ajax. Bjelleklang - talk 23:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge — as a web developer, this content is interesting but I believe it should be merged with Ajax (programming). It also has nothing to do with the W3C spec. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 23:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into XML, rather than Ajax. Pavel Vozenilek 03:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Gary King 02:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Make it into an independent article. If we merged BXML, shall we merge XAML, XUL and many others? If we merged the markup languages, shall we merge Java, PHP and Ruby? They are better to put in different articles. Tomyeh

• Keep --Mozillaman 14:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it as it is. This should not be in Ajax. --Rufous 15:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a declarative interface programming language, just like XAML and XUL. --LawEraser 12:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC) this is this voter's first edit.

• Delete. This is just a XML based format. Shall we put up article for every vendor who has specifications for XML-based formats? --Sleepyhead 11:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyone and their grandma can conjure XML formats. The question I ask the above people is: Is this vendor or its thingamajig encyclopedic? -- Perfecto 18:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I guess we were all thrown off by the ridiculous attempt to merge this into Ajax. I'd agree though, this might not even deserve an article in the first place. Rufous 16:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not well known or important enough to merit an entry. There is and will be more and more Ajax toolkits, and certainly not all of them (if any of them) deserve an entry. RobLinwood 04:11, 27 December 2005 (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.