Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTPTP

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.

HTPTP

The result was Speedy delete as blatant advertising Guy (Help!) 20:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page describes a networking idea that may not have achieved sufficient notability for inclusion. This idea is not published anywhere else. Wherever 'htptp' appears on Google, it is usually a typo of 'http'. The idea itself appears to be a type of caching, or else distributed webpage serving. The last few sentences imply that this page will be used to develop the concept. Richard Cavell (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this is not a hoax, it's patently non-notable. Note that a Google search for "Host to Peer to Peer" (with quotes) shows 3 results. LinguistAtLarge 09:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a (rather trivial) idea entered by the inventor, that is not actually used anywhere. Not notable as research either. Averell (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I know the 'author' of this article, said author is very young, and is a member of a large gaming site. HTPTP does not exist, he wants to invent it. (77.102.241.71 (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - original "research", and it's something Tor does to some extent with .onion sites. --Blowdart | ^talk 09:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Darkspin (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC) The content is solid and this is an attempt to get the information to the public. By deleting this article we eventuality rob people of the idea and concept in its entirety. To do this with out giving this article time to grow would be harmful to the the concepts creators and there attempts to make such a network a reality. also to add this article hosts some original concepts not heard or seen before. I stand by what Travis R Clark has described as it should be considered "a work in progress"[reply]
- Note, above user is Travis R Clark - author of article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.241.71 (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Darkspin (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC) "it seems that an article should be about something Popular and "known". It should be deleted if that is the case." however i must state that there are plenty of ideas expressed though articles. Why should mine on Wikipedia be any different?[reply]
- Because yours is, as you say, unverifiable, since "By deleting this article we eventuality rob people of the idea and concept in its entirety.", meaning that there are no sources documenting this subject, only Wikipedia; is, as you say, original research, since it "hosts some original concepts not heard or seen before"; and is, as you say, abuse of Wikipedia as a soapbox, since "this is an attempt to get the information to the public". Wikipedia is not for what you are doing, and you have made a convincing and watertight case for deletion of this article. Please get your ideas published outside of Wikipedia, then acknowleged and documented by the rest of the world independent of you, first. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Also read the policies and guidelines for this project. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — Wikipedia is not your own webhost, nor is it a place to store one's "ideas." It is also not a place in which to "make stuff famous."
Speedy delete (G11) — on second thought, this is spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam bacon and spam. Stuff does not achieve fame by being posted here; that is expected to already have been achieved. MuZemike (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2008 (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.