Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPFC

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 09:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPFC

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bgwhite with the following rationale "This is an internet standard, thus notable. However, the article needs work.". Doh that last part, but I am not aware of any policy that states that Internet standards are notable. Like everything else, they need to meet said guidelines, and I don't see how this stub does it. Further, I don't see sources that discuss this topic in-depth. At best I can see this redirected to some list. Not merged, because there is no content to speak of. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Fibre Channel ~~or just delete.~~ Might be useful as a search term, but maybe not enough for a stand-alone topic. There are hundreds of "standards" every year that do not catch on, and that alone is not enough. Someone outside the "standards" group needs to notice it. However, at least the mention needs to be made in the Fibre Channel article and does not appear to be now. Instead the article is just a summary of the FC protocol, and Wikipedia should not just be yet another standards document repository. W Nowicki (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, this standard as been around 17 years. RFC 2625.. The standard was updated to RFC 4338. It did catch on. Bgwhite (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded the article and have added 7 reliable sources, six books and one authoritative RFC. --Mark viking (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Mark viking, there are plenty of refs. A quick Google book search shows a tonne of books. It meets GNG. This standard as been around 17 years via RFC 2625. The standard was updated to RFC 4338. It's used in in every server farm. Bgwhite (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in few books (as listed in references). Not that broad coverage as I would like, but still sufficient to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In expanding this article, I was able to find six books that were independent, reliable sources for the protocol and standard. There is enough content among those to have written a (currently) modest article on the topic and to pass notability thresholds per WP:GNG. A notable topic and an article with no major structural problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sure, close it out and keep 'em. Definitely should be mentioned somewhere. Should go in the body of the parent article perhaps, instead of just the "see also". Probably Fibre Channel Protocol too? Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a merge, just the proposed deletion. I agree that it may be useful or better to discuss IPFC in some FC networking protocol context. Until a merge happens, I think this article can stand alone as a well-reference stub. --Mark viking (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. I find User:Mark viking's expansion and sources used sufficient to address my concerns. No objection to merge if this is the consensus, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 7 November 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.