Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snap (web framework)

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. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snap (web framework) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent references to establish notability. Verging on promotional, with the statement that "Snap aims to be the de facto web toolkit for Haskell" and unsupported claims such as "A fast HTTP server library" (compared to what?) and "A sensible and clean monad for web programming". The article was undeleted after a PROD deletion as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Snap_.28web_framework.29 AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrew - According to Gregory Collins in 2011, Snap Haskell (my bad) was 40x-50x faster than Ruby on a per-cpu basis at the time.[1] That would make it hundreds of times faster on a multicore processor since Haskell supports multicore parallelism. Snap has been sped up since then too, along with its competitor Yesod. Here is a 2011-era benchmark comparing Snap, Warp (the http server part of Yesod), PHP, and others. Notice that PHP (which powers the Wikimedia servers) is way down near the bottom of that chart, to get an idea of the speeds being discussed. The AOSA book has a chapter about Warp[2] saying Warp was on a par with nginx, and that was before the implementation of Mio, the parallel GHC I/O manager which made Warp and Snap even faster. I'm not sure Snap's speed ever reached parity with Yesod but it's in the same ballpark, and both of them are drastically (orders of magnitude) faster than the "mainstream" PHP, Rails, Django, etc. So it is perfectly reasonable in the context of web frameworks to say that Snap is fast. People tend to choose between Snap, Yesod, and Happstack (the three main Haskell web frameworks) based on API preference rather than raw speed, since all are bloody fast compared to most other stuff out there (except maybe Node, which gets its speed by being very primitive). 70.36.142.114 (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's notable in that it's the first result in google for "haskell web framework". An independent book has been written about it and is being sold: http://snapforbeginners.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.79.35 (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Searching for "snap haskell" returns about half a million hits, and there's the above mentioned book. All that makes it notable enough; however, some toning down of the article is required. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Snap is notable for being the first [3] [4] Haskell web server to employ the now popular enumerator/iteratee model for processing HTTP requests and generated responses. LukeHoersten (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nice amount of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Though the article could be better, the topic appears notable. This is one of the main web frameworks that have been coded in Haskell. We already have articles on Yesod (web framework) and Happstack. Yesod is probably in the lead since it is covered by an O'Reilly book, but the other two appear serious as well. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The non-notability claim is clearly refuted by references to a published book, an IEEE journal article, and numerous web articles. In fact, it's hard to imagine how this page could have ever been considered for deletion. But I think it was just an honest mistake - apparently the quality of the article was previously very low. There is nothing like the threat of deletion to inspire editors to clean up a badly written article. StormWillLaugh (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the book was only mentioned here, it wasn't referenced in the article. OK, added reference. StormWillLaugh (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks to those who have contributed to this discussion. In view of the extra information that's been given here and added to the article, I'm happy to let the article go to what looks like an overwhelming keep. However, I do think it needs some improvement, as it still comes across as rather promotional in the "Overview" section; and there are a lot of inline external links that should be changed to references, per point 2 of Wikipedia:EXTLINK#Important_points_to_remember. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2014 (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.