Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multicast VLAN registration

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. L Faraone 03:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multicast VLAN registration

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

No particular evidence of notability either in the article, or a Google search. All sources that I spotted are either unreliable, or primary (are linked to ISPs or similar companies). As such, this fails WP:GNG. The fact the article is a long-term orphan is another hint at a lack of notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 08:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 08:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find a few patents on the technology, and it does appear in several vendor's switch manuals. So it might merit a mention somewhere, probably IP multicast or virtual LAN, for example. A merge is probably not worth it, since there are no sources and it is not clear if the article is technically correct. From a quick look at the vendors' manuals and patents, it looks to me like there is not really a "protocol" but a switch feature. It seems the Internet Group Management Protocol is the one used. There might be some proprietary protocol among the switches of a single vendor in a "stack", but if not documented, we obviously will not find much about it. An IETF or IEEE protocol might be notable, but not just a vendor feature. And no links to it, so no need to keep around a redirect. W Nowicki (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is certainly not established in the article and there's not enough information in the article for me to determine what this article is trying to be about. Maybe Multiple Registration Protocol? ~KvnG 15:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe the feature uses that protocol now? But anyway still no evidence it is a "protocol" of its own, or even still really relevant. Clearly a Wikipedia article for every acronym ever coined in a manual does not make sense. W Nowicki (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2013 (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.