Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/API documentation

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 redirect. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

API documentation

It carries no other info than what can be inferred from "API" and "documentation": "API documentation" is just documentation of an API. Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 04:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If you need Wikipedia to figure out what this is, you shouldn't even be asking. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 05:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. And please document that redirect in Fortran or Cobol. SkierRMH,09:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Application programming interface. -SpuriousQ 12:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Application programming interface. We have an article on telephone book ... this is no different. I can think of two meaningful things off the top of my head that the article could discuss. (1) Some companies don't include part of the API in their API documentation - that was one of the anti-competitive practices Micro$oft was accused of. (2) API document generators - already briefly mentioned - are a helpful tool and are built in to some languages. I would suggest either keep or redirect it to API with leave to create a better article on the topic. BigDT 16:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first point might be relevant, though I'm not sure (about phone books… I don't think they aren't different). The second one certainly isn't: documentation generators (documentation extractors) aren't specifically for APIs (though Sun and its Javadoc-related terminology has created some confusion in this area :-/). —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 18:17, 11 December 2006 (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.