Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTTP Working Group

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 July 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. v/r - T P 19:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HTTP Working Group

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

Not notable, a subcomittee Night of the Big Wind (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep No reason, based on WP guidelines, was cited for deleting the article. No evidence the nomonatir followed WP:BEFORE before making the AFD nomination, which is one of many nominations made in apparent haste. Edison (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You warned me already for getting flak, nice that you give it yourself. In my opinion an article must show notability, not external sources. It is up to the original author to give evidence of notability, not for newpage-patrollers to check if an article is maybe notable. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rediect/Delete, No evidence of significance in the article, some coverage but not anything that could be called significant. Either delete or redirect to Internet Engineering Task Force. Mtking (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete how is "not notable" not a policy-based reason for deletion? It does appear that this sub-group does not meet general notability guidelines. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Active IETF Working Groups link does not show this group at all. One of the references seemed to be for year 1994, which made me think that the page probably is too old. Moreover, this talks of HTTP 1.0 will be worked on, etc (future tense of 1994-1996). I wonder if that task force exists now. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is evidence of the HTTP Work force existing... Take a look here: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/ --RahulG (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure? That page also states: Now that both HTTP extensions and HTTP/1.1 are stable specifications, W3C has closed the HTTP Activity. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. So even if it is no longer active, I feel it should kept for historical reasons. (?) I mean, it did exist at one point of time and can be referred to by other wikipedia pages. RahulG (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, so if it was notable, then it still is. But in thise case it may not have been active long enough to achieve notability. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:29, 5 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.