Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core Protocols


 * 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 DELETE. Discussions have to end eventually! In this case, nothing substantive has been done to really deal with the point that this effectively relies on a single book. The point that there are in-texts reference to core protocols does not mean that the texts are referring to these core protocols, since they are likely mainly to be referring to technical protocols (as in Protocol or Protocol that are at the core of some system, rather than this list of ideas. -Splash - tk 19:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Core Protocols

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand, you state no reliable sources, yet the article mentions a book that is published +10 years ago. This is something that has been growing ever since and has a whole community around it. The rules of Wikipedia state that when an article is up for deletion, we can't bring in other people to defend as this is called Meatpuppets. What else can I/we do to prove this is valid information? YvesHanoulle


 * A book published by the creators of the concept isn't a independent reliable source, it's a self-published source. It's not a matter of whether the information is "valid", it's about whether the concept is notable. To show that, you have to show that someone other than the creators of the concept have ever actually cared enough about it to write something about it.
 * That you are contemplating "bring[ing] in other people to defend" means you don't understand the deletion process. It isn't a matter of getting people to gang up and vote. It isn't a vote, it's a discussion. You have to provide reasons in the form of actual sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Tom, I just added a few sources. I am not sure if they would be considered as 'reliable sources' - I think at least one of them would be. Let me know what you think. Thx Fgareeboo. 3:53, 8 October 2012 (PST)


 * Of all the sources that have been added, the only one that is even vaguely close to being a reliable source is the InfoQ article. And that's not nearly significant enough to actually show notability under the WP:GNG. The rest of the sources are all blogs. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Tom ! So that I get a good feel for what is required here (and I have a feeling this does not exist yet), would 1 peer-reviewed paper on the topic in an industry publication (say IEEE ) satisfy the requirement here ? Fgareeboo. 15:29, 8 October 2012 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgareeboo (talk • contribs)


 * I'd have to see it, but quite probably. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Added one more reference to course on Core Protocols taught for last 10 years by Columbia College in Chicago. Fgareeboo (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good thing to add, but I don't think it'll get you much in terms of WP:GNG compliance. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * leaning delete This is really something of a coatrack for the book Software for Your Head, which seems to have made a very minor splash but which seems to have failed to catch on.
 * Week Keep - Found one references . This might be relevant . Mostly there is a vast amount of content that uses the term core protocol informally. Maybe an expert can help