Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lillehovde's Dynamic Network Address Protocol
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete with 5 delete votes, a keep vote from an anonymous contributor, and a keep vote from a newly registered user who seems to be unaware of Wikipedia:No original research. moink 20:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is real. Can't find it in Google and does not seem credible. YUL89YYZ 19:54, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
- delete; possible vanity, anyway not-notable. Perhaps some day, after the project is completed and peer-reviewed... — brighterorange (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I quote from the article: "The project is currently in its early stage of development." Any notability (or even completion) is in the future, clearly. Bunchofgrapes 21:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep The project is very much real, and it have been under development for a couple of years. There're some pretty interesting changes in the field of computer networking compared to conventional protocols, and those who're familiar in the field will recognize those are very much real. The article now contains a good deal more information than the brief overview also. I must comment on that it would be hard to find it on google because the project have been publicly closed until recently, but with the bsd implementation of the stack that is on the way, I believe that's going to change. Tempus0 01:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It may change. When and if it does, that would be an appropriate time to create this page. Again, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, it's helpful if you sign your comments by entering four tildes (~~~~). Bunchofgrapes 23:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The "not a crystal ball" section you're refering to have nothing to do with this article, however I understand that it may fall under the "no original research". Depends on how you look at it, because it can also be considered a practial application scheme. But research should have referances to reputable publications, which this one lack. The project leader was publishing some papers on this, so I'll find out which magazines that was and add it. Tempus0 01:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I place this in the Crytal Ball category because you seem to be asserting that this topic is going to become notable (shortly?) in the future. It is not notable now, except perhaps as notable original research. It is also a little hard for me to believe that a proposal for a Networking Address Scheme would not have a large number of google hits before it came into wide or even limited real-world use. My opinion (which I could be argued out of, perhaps) is that a network scheme described in research magazines but not even moderately deployed in actuality would not be notable. Bunchofgrapes 03:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I agree that this article may be a bit "early". When some articles have been published, the implementation is available for public development and testing, and I hear there's also a Internet-draft on its way, then someone else might take the time to write an article again here. Tempus0 18:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for understanding. I hope you continue to participate in Wikipedia! Bunchofgrapes 18:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I agree that this article may be a bit "early". When some articles have been published, the implementation is available for public development and testing, and I hear there's also a Internet-draft on its way, then someone else might take the time to write an article again here. Tempus0 18:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I place this in the Crytal Ball category because you seem to be asserting that this topic is going to become notable (shortly?) in the future. It is not notable now, except perhaps as notable original research. It is also a little hard for me to believe that a proposal for a Networking Address Scheme would not have a large number of google hits before it came into wide or even limited real-world use. My opinion (which I could be argued out of, perhaps) is that a network scheme described in research magazines but not even moderately deployed in actuality would not be notable. Bunchofgrapes 03:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Why is this one on delete? seemed kinda interesting in my opinion. 00:30 13, September 2005 (UTC) (Unsigned comment by IP 151.203.191.170; IP's first wikipedia contribution.)
- Delete per WP:NOT crystal ball, WP:V. Barno 01:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. This is either a hoax, a joke, or someone's OR. There is absolutely no way that a serious or legitimate proposal to redo a Layer 3 addressing scheme can exist in a total vacuum. Where's the RFC? Where's the IETF Working Group? Where is any evidence whatsoever of any publication of this in a journal? Proceedings of a conference? Even a BOF session at a user group? Not even a single Usenet posting??? I am familiar with how network standards and protocols are developed, promulgated, and adopted, and it is inconceivable that something could be described at this stage and there be absolutely no record of it in the entire Internet standards & protocols community. Plus, there are fewer than 10 unique Google hits on the protocol's alleged designer (or a person or persons with the same name), none of which refer to any networking or protocol design activties. [User:MCB|MCB]] 06:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: It have already been pointed out that the protocol is under development, which do explain the lack of documentation. So, yes, it's original research so it doesn't belong here. That matter has been resolved. But since you claim to be familiar with protocol development, you probably know that layer 3 protocols like IPv4, IPX and XNS had years in closed research / developement before they became widely used / standarized. What you seem to have described in your post is the process to adapted a widely used protocol to a network standard, which is something years ahead of a protocol still in development. Tempus0 18:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no. IPX and XNS are not good examples, because they were originally designed as proprietary protocols designed to provide commercial advantage, and were kept secret (in fact, trade secret) during development. IPv4, on the other hand, was not "closed R&D" by any means, and was widely discussed in the network community before its deployment on ARPANET. The Lillehovde protocol, on the other hand, while it may not be entirely imaginary, does not by any means appear to have any independent or verifiable existence. I mean, many of us have sketched out protocols or meta-protocols on whiteboards to solve particular problems; perhaps even written code stubs to handle them on top of a lower layer. That does not really signify anything. One of the very odd and suspicious things about the article is that neither Lars Lillehovde nor his institution (company? university? laboratory?) is identified. Unless a project is proprietary or a trade secret, it strains my credulity that there is no mention of it in any form whatsoever other than the article itself, even though we have access to essentially every web page, Usenet group, conference proceeedings, or mailing list in existence. In 2005, the world just does not work that way. Perhaps you could give some details about Mr. Lillehovde, his institution, and about yourself and your affiliation as well? -- MCB 23:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It have already been pointed out that the protocol is under development, which do explain the lack of documentation. So, yes, it's original research so it doesn't belong here. That matter has been resolved. But since you claim to be familiar with protocol development, you probably know that layer 3 protocols like IPv4, IPX and XNS had years in closed research / developement before they became widely used / standarized. What you seem to have described in your post is the process to adapted a widely used protocol to a network standard, which is something years ahead of a protocol still in development. Tempus0 18:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research, and appears to be a load of crap as well. MCB hits it right on the head. Quale 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, it's original research. However the rest of your post only show how immature you are, and that you're not to be taken seriously. You seem to lack the ability to be constructivity and proffesional, and I think you should consider if this is indeed the correct forum for you. Tempus0 18:09, 18 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.