Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agent Extensibility Protocol

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. It could make sense to merge into a larger article down the road, but no consensus to delete or merge at this time. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Extensibility Protocol

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Refs added are only passing mentions, lack WP:SIGCOV. Still fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added another source for good measure. More to be found searching RFC 2741. ~Kvng (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, these don't look notable to me. A quick Google Scholar search reveals that the topic is obscure and only mentioned in articles with a tiny number of citations. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By doing research RFC 2741 the article is notable--Unclethepoter (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC doesn't meet WP:RS and is likely primary. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On a pure sourcing basis, IETF and CRC Press are definitely reliable. guninvalid (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IETF is primary. The CRC book is not well cited so I am not sure it should be used to support notability. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROMO and WP:AUDIENCE. Regarding notability, the sources that were provided are obscure (not well cited) scientific works; "multiple independent, significant, and independent of the subject" does not appear to be met. Merge to Simple Network Management Protocol is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added a few references that I could find in books that talk about the protocol; more exist but this suffices keep for me. WeWake (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @WeWake: both sources that you added are poorly cited academic sources with very little references or acknowledgement from the wider research community. Do you have a connection with this topic? Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Caleb Stanford, Citation count is not the only indicator of reliability—it depends on the context and more so in an academic setting. Tons of peer-reviewed publications in generally reliable places are rarely cited beyond a few times in many discplines, that doesn't make them "poor." Also, please review WP:ASPERSIONS since this is the second time you've asked me specifically about COI (which curiously was not asked to the other commentors here). Cheers! — WeWake (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the only indicator but it's a pretty good hint! These are not good quality sources. Asking about a COI doesn't mean you have one - it's just a question and it's fair to ask. I did not accuse you of misconduct so WP:ASPERSIONS does not apply. Thanks for the reply. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You also didn't answer the question, would you like to respond? Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SATISFY. WeWake (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @WeWake: The page you linked already covers this exactly: "Asking for a clarification is fine, as long as you aren't demanding." You're not obligated to respond, but refusing to simply respond that you don't have a COI is a bit strange, if indeed you don't have one. See WP:DGF. Kind regards, Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2025 (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.