Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port 8789

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Port 8789

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

The port in question is listed as unassigned. Other, much more prominent ports (80, 22) do not have their own wikipedia pages, but instead are referenced in List of TCP and UDP port numbers. At best, it should be included there. Plandu (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: port is not independently notable. As noted above, an entry in List of TCP and UDP port numbers is sufficient. No redirect required.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. — Music1201 ^talk 23:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nomination, more notable ports are handled without their own page. This port has no evidence of WP:GNG notability on its own. Chris vLS (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this currently suggests better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the lack of notability. However, bringing up ports 80 and 22 is little more than WP:OTHERSTUFF, unless a similar and relevant discussion was made regarding those and it was decided to not have separate articles (and then it is not so much "X has no article so Y should not have one", it is "per similar arguments as in the discussion about X, delete Y"). FWIW, currently, Port 80 is a DAB page pointing to TCP port, and Port 22 redirects to Secure Shell. Tigraan (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! Much appreciated. (FWIW, I did do a general search for sources supporting notability.) Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I can't imagine what Wikipedia would look like if we made an article for every single open port that an application might use. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that you can imagine that, unless you are singularly lacking in imagination. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 9 April 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.