Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCP hole punching


 * 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. No consensus to delete. Whether a merge is a good idea is not clear from this discussion and should be discussed on the relevant talk pages. Regards  So Why  14:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

TCP hole punching

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No meaningful text, only garbage. Timwi (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, if you know the context its not difficult to understand. Important topic albeit not well written. I copied the lead phrase from a related article although I admit an outsider might still struggle to put it in context. --Pgallert (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also vote for keeping it. The subject is very complex. I agree that this article does not explain the solution - it only mentions some ideas. Hence it was called garbage. But if it is kept, maybe it will encourage people to expand it. Rather than deleting, I would put "this article is a stub" tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.211.196.37 (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful technical reference, but admission of copyvio above should be considered. Kcordina Talk 09:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - of no value in explaining subject matter to someone not already an expert, could easily be word salad produced by a random phrase generator. Not all technobarf needs to be included in Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Wtshymanski: this is an unreadable article without context, and would seem to contain a lot of how-to manual material; hard to say, because the text is almost entirely unintelligible.  Sysadmin trivia like this falls within the overemphasized portion of Wikipedia's inherent bias.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and more clearly identify context in the lead section. I disagree that there's no value in it because you need to be an expert to understand it - the value of knowledge is inherent but it should be rewritten for a broader audience. Wikipedia isn't meant to instruct, only to inform. Ivanvector (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - there should be a WP:ICANTREADIT. Deserving of cleanup, yes. Needing more than 20 edits to make it readable by the average Reader, yes. Notable, yes. Needing deletion, no. There are plenty of articles on WP that are difficult to read (e.g. Hamming code, Inflation (cosmology), Optical tweezers), but isnt that the point of the project? That over time, the topic is explained better and better. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion is avoiding the issue of WP:V: can we have some evidence from reliable sources that this is a notable topic in computing? Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment shouldn't this be closed as no consensus?  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 17:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to NAT traversal and let someone write one intelligible paragraph. This is both a good editorial decision, but also as Fences and windows says, the material as it exists is not verified for a standalone article. Miami33139 (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to NAT traversal. It's good info, but probably not notable enough for it's own article right now. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 18:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge but definitely don't delete. Very worthwhile.--Brunnian (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with other similar technical pages. Don't delete. andyminicooper (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Merge with related topic, or rewrite to be clearer but no need to delete. Prefer merging.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge Seems to be a worthwhile topic, either needs to be edited for clarity or merged. If kept, it should most definitely be expanded upon since this is a complex subject. LoudHowie (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Translate Articles need to be comprehensible to a wider group than the ones who know what they're about. That might sound obvious - but how many articles fail it? If I am looking something up on Wikipedia, I like to be able to read the article. Peridon (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2009 (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.