Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automated Content Access 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. v/r - TP 15:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated Content Access Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No coverage since 2008 as far as I can see that isn't the project itself talking about itself. Soupy sautoy (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unclear how lack of recent coverage is relevant. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There was coverage at the beginning as it was launched by a notable institution, but it fizzled out. I realise that the notability guidelines say it isn't temporary, but is there room for something looking notable in its inception but turning out not to be? Soupy sautoy (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know the general answer to your question. I did just notice a recent update on the ACAP site -- management of it has been turned over to IPTC and ACAP 2.0 planned.Mike Linksvayer (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still no coverage though, and I'd have thought if anyone was watching it at all, that'd be something to report. Soupy sautoy (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know the general answer to your question. I did just notice a recent update on the ACAP site -- management of it has been turned over to IPTC and ACAP 2.0 planned.Mike Linksvayer (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There was coverage at the beginning as it was launched by a notable institution, but it fizzled out. I realise that the notability guidelines say it isn't temporary, but is there room for something looking notable in its inception but turning out not to be? Soupy sautoy (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This was in the media 1 or 2 years ago. We don't delete biographies of dead people either. —Ruud 14:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable. The necessary standard of notability was met at the time, and this wasn't just somebody's pet idea that existed in the blogosphere only to be instantly forgotten. It was a genuine attempt to adopt a standard for an important sector. The value of keeping these things in Wikipedia even if they are later superseded or fail to thrive is that the topic will be mentioned in some context or another and there is a need for a reliable source where users can find out what it is/was and why it might not have succeeded. --AJHingston (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2011 (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.