Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTTPA

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 merge to HTTP. This is the second relist as the previous 'merge' consensus was deemed as difficult to implement. There is still consensus to merge with HTTP, so I am closing it as such. This has been in AfD for a month now and there have been no other alternatives that have clear consensus. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 11:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HTTPA[edit]

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

User:A.Minkowiski prodded it with no rationale, then this was deprodded eventually and survived with little improvement for the last two years. I think the prod was the right course of action, and I would have used 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. " Which instead I'll use for this AfD. At best this can be merged to some article dealing with broader http-related topic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with HTTP. - it is not notable on its own. Should be part of the HTTP article. Xaxing (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with HTTP. - I prodded it just because this was new protocol that is being used researchers who introduced it. And this is being used by the private companies only. This has not been accepted Broadly as an Internet Protocol. The only internet protocol we use is HTTP. I being Telecom & Electronics Engineer never heard about this in my Graduation. This could be some extension to HTTP, so merging it with HTTP would be the best solution I guess. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 17:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as obviously closest connected and there's nothing to currently suggest it's own acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was closed as "merge", but is now relisted following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 2 where participants expressed the view that a merger would be difficult to implement; please see that discussion before contributing here. Sandstein 17:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the reworked prose into Tim Berners-Lee#Current work. This is a project out of Tim Berners-Lee's group. Berners-Lee was the inventor of HTTP, so this isn't some random grad student project. It has gotten press coverage at Motherboard, ZDNet, and Science 2.0. There looks to be a published paper on it at Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web. The news articles were around the same time, so I count them as one RS and the paper is primary, hence I don't think this reaches notability. Basic facts, however, are verifiable and as one of the current projects of Tim Berners-Lee's group, Tim Berners-Lee#Current work would be a better target than HTTP, as HTTPA isn't close to a standard yet. Because of the deletion review, I have reworked the article into an explicit proposal for merged material. --Mark viking (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark viking: While this is a more workable suggestion than the merge to HTTP, I'm still not convinced that this is the appropriate thing to do. The problem being that is in fact the work of a single grad student, whose press release just happened to get picked up (one of the perks of having a famous advisor, I guess). Berner-Lee's Decentralized Information Group lists this neither as a past or current project, or as a selected publication. It only links to MIT's press release from Current News. So claiming this is a "proposal being developed by Berners-Lee's research group" may be overstating things a bit. It also seems somewhat trivial compared to the other things mentioned as Berner-Lee's current work. If someone brought Berner-Lee's article up to featured status, I don't think it would mention HTTPA. Simply mentioning the Decentralized Information Group would seem more appropriate. —Ruud 11:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to HTTP - Didn't need to go to DRV either. –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not going to happen. AfD discussions cannot compel a merge. They can only decide on whether a topic is notable enough for inclusion as a stand-alone article or not. —Ruud 11:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's alot of confusion over it - A few say AFDs are not Merge-discussions and thus close them as Speedy Keep, Most (like me) simply close the AFD as merge and move on to the next one, I don't see a problem with it and if I'm being completely honest it seems you're only using the "This cannot be merged" tactic just to get the article entirely deleted which isn't going to happen, Consensus is to merge so closing as Speedy Keep would be silly on all forms - As you can see from the picture it can be done so it may aswell be actually done. –Davey2010^Talk 14:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While an AfD can certainly be closed as a merge, the actual merge is not going to happen unless someone 1) makes the effort to perform the merge (properly, preferably) and 2) is willing to defend the inclusion of the to be merged material on the target's talk page. Merges are a lot more complicated than pressing the delete button, and AfD voters rarely make the effort to do either when voting merge. —Ruud 16:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking notability and as not worth merging to HTTP or Tim Berners-Lee § Current work. Rebb ing 15:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 18 May 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.