Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proprietary protocol


 * 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. John254 04:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Proprietary protocol

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Combination of two words hardly constitutes a unique dictionary definition. The idea of incorrect use of the word proprietary is already well established on more than enough articles, and combining the word with every topic it can possibly applied to does not make for a valid article. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep; the phrase "proprietary protocol" is a commonly used on the Web and in news sources searched by Google News. The fact you misuse "is", when I use my definition of "a small North African bird", does not negate the fact that this is the real-life meaning of the word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Comment Dispute of the meaning has nothing todo with my nomination. The term "proprietary sandwich" is perfectly valid, could even become used to describe something, however, it doesn't represent any new meaning worthy of an article. As I said, proprietary and protocol are both covered in detail already, unless we are also going to have articles for "Red Bus", "Green Mobile Phone" and "Smelly Cheese", then i don't see how a combination of words, however often used becomes a topic. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the meaning of the word has nothing to do with your nomination, then don't bring it up in your nomination. Colors are usually worthless for descriptors, and smelly is in the mind of the beholder. None of those have the type of quality hits "proprietary protocol" does. And the issues surrounding "proprietary protocols" are different then "proprietary software", etc., and worthy of their own article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * keep This article needs some expansion, but this is an important subject for many software developers. The fact that the vast majority of "proprietary FOO" articles would be pointless does not mean that this particular one is. Speaking as a programmer of open-source network applications, the issue of proprietary vs. non-proprietary protocols in particular has significance to my (and many other individuals') professional work. Networking protocols are a topic area where the issue of proprietary vs. open is particularly crucial, and thus the general (and correct) objection to the proliferation of "proprietary X, Y, and Z" articles should not be applied.Ben Kidwell (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2008 (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.