Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTTP-MPLEX

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HTTP-MPLEX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

1. PhD thesis with no substantial coverage failing WP:GN - no substantial citations (see talk page for quick analysis) 2. COI = creator is PhD author 3. seems a dead subject as never implemented, but SPDY has been Widefox (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Being an unimplemented proposal does not necessarily deprive the subject of notability. What I generally look for in subjects like this is, does it have any sort of lasting significance in the development of the field? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Inclining to Delete oh? I thought having no substantial, reliable and independent sources either in the article or elsewhere meant notability was not established. There's a different criterion here? I'm not sure how we would tell, other than by waiting and seeing if it turned out to be useful, at least academically - i.e. it got cited and written about. In which case, wouldn't this be a case of Too Soon, Crystal? --- your puzzled correspondent, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess what I mean is that I think that substantial coverage in independent sources is necessary, but not sufficient; the coverage also should establish one of the many sorts of significance that would make the subject appropriate for a separate encyclopedia entry. For an apparently failed proposal like this one, the likeliest route would be to find a reference establishing that it had some kind of influence over what was eventually adopted. Since it seems nothing has been, I'd be inclined to delete this without prejudice. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes Ihcoyc, in terms of academia, there's non-substantial coverage (more limited, incidental) but crucially doesn't establish significance. It never made it out of academia - no internet standard, no implementation, no de-facto standard like SPDY. SPDY is in use by 2/3 most common browsers. It has eclipsed this thesis. I've found no link between them, no legacy. A premature article. If not notable now, then when? Widefox (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article (and HTTP(P2P)) is an academic thesis, and all the references appear to be either journal reprints of the thesis, or presentations of the thesis by the authors. RobMattson and 150.101.154.145 appear to be one and the same, and user has indicated that the article is a self-edit . There is no implementation, standard, or independent reference. Plenty of grounds for immediate deletion, and none for keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.101.80 (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^confabulate 16:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on the admission on User_talk:RobMattson this article is WP:COI. The original proposal to delete was removed by the same author. The previous comments indicate a lack of notability. Michaelfaq (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2012 (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.