Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EXI4JSON

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 merge to Efficient XML Interchange or Efficient XML Interchange Working Group -- RoySmith (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EXI4JSON (EXI for JSON)

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

My google search results indcate no coverage in RS. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"EXI4JSON" is an abbreviation very recently introduced, therefore, online search regarding this topic also needs to use its full name "EXI for JSON". --Nadotesumerogi (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline, certainly every combination of initials for every project does not require its own article. I would suggest merge into Efficient XML Interchange Working Group. That one is also scant at the moment too, but it looks like there have even been academic articles written on the more general idea. Either one on its own is clearly below the threshold for independent notability. Efficient XML Interchange might also be a place for it to go? This name seems a bit imprecise now, since JSON might be more popular than XML? I am not an expert in this are. W Nowicki (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and then merge as needed as there's certainly still nothing actually suggesting substance and depth for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 18 September 2016 (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.