Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XPDL

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. — CharlotteWebb 08:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XPDL

I'm finding a couple sources here, but they are mostly trivial mentions. One that isn't, but nothing to build an article from. Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. This appears to be one of several competing standards for "business process management" (others include BPEL, BPMN, and UML, which we have articles on). This article could probably be expanded to the level of the articles on the other standards. I'm having a hard time figuring out how notable this one really is between all the seminars and press releases, but it seems to be mentioned often enough and apparently Fujitsu has a product based on it. Dave6 08:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Article has improved significantly since it was nominated. Dave6 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was weak before and did not do justice to the subject. This standard is the subject of intense academic research. Not only Fujitsu offers a products based on this language, but so does BEA(Fuego), IBM(FileNet), TIBCO(Staffware), and about 2 dozen others. More important from a Wikipedia point of view is the number of open source workflow projects which are designed around XPDL. The office of the Deputy Prime Minister in the UK has sponsored a national workflow project which officially endorses WfMC standards (including XPDL) for all workflow projects in the UK. There is a working group at ISO working to adopt the WfMC reference model as an official ISO standard.

What is more important is the number of refereed papers from conferences or well known journals which speak of XPDL. I have included citations from IEEE conferences, ACM conferences, Springer Verlag books, as well as PhD and Master's theses. XPDL is a subject which is well woven into the fabric of the information technology industry. None of the citations are WfMC publications. I tried to restrict the cited articles to those that mention XPDL directly in the title or abstract. But there are hundreds or possibly thousands more papers that mention XPDL or WfMC standards in one way or another, due to the central role that WfMC has played in the area of workflow for the past 13 years.

Before you delete this page, please look at these examples for comparison:

• BPML - this is a proprietary language which was implemented only by two companies: Intalio and Sterling Commerce. The standardization group has dropped development of it. This page is certainly weak, and contains no proof of notability.
• IBM Web Services Flow Language this is a proprietary langauge (not even a standard) which was never implemented by any party outside IBM. I see no evidence that it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."
• XLANG was another proprietary language invented by Microsoft, and also was probably never implemented by anyone outside of Microsoft. I see no evidence that it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."

Goflow6206 17:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)goflow6206

• Comment - Please see Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Comparison is sometimes useful, but is not in itself a valid reason for keeping an article. Lyrl ^Talk _C 16:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Legit business process stuff, albeit not well known. It's notable enough, given the number of products. Georgewilliamherbert 00:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Recent improvements demonstrate notability. Gwernol 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. An important workflow modelling/processing specification and interchange file format. John Vandenberg 21:45, 9 January 2007 (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.