Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port 80

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was redirect to HyperText Transfer Protocol. Rx StrangeLove 05:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Port 80

Has no wikilinks, has no pages linking to it, and topic is already covered in the HTTP article. It further sites no source, has no real valuable information. Nominate and Delete --Vidarlo 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a newcomer's first and only edit. Whatever the decision here, let's appreciate him, OK? -- Perfecto 14:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree, the comment on the users discussion seemed out of order and should have been more appropiatley phrased. Englishrose 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I do not see the content being duplicated on the HTTP article, in fact I didn't see any discussion on ports at all. This article needs to be cleaned up and wikified, but that's not criteria for deletion. Ifnord 19:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:I'll quote a significant bit of it for you:
typically initiates a request by establishing a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection to a particular port on a remote host (port 80 by default; see List of well-known ports (computing)). An HTTP server listening on that port waits for the client to send a request string
I'd say this covers the topic fairly well, and parts of the article is about TCP in general, which the TCP/IP article handles, and covers in fair more detail. So the article is redunant, and port 80 is ambigious at best. --vidarlo 20:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to HTTP. Tim Pierce 20:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Port 80 is different to HTTP. The Port 80 articles offers more info on Port 80 than the HTTP article. Englishrose 21:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It includes info I'd say should be referenced to TCP/IP, about connection setup and teardown.So I feel the combination of TCP/IP, and HTTP covers it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidarlo (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Port 80 is not really technically different from HTTP. The article includes some general information about what "ports" are in TCP/IP, and some knowledge about HTTP specifically, but doesn't add anything significant on its own. Tim Pierce 23:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite – the style is awful at the moment and the article lacks any useful structure. Other than that, the topic-specific information should stay. Lee J Haywood 21:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete (or redirect). The HTTP article doesn't have all the information that "Port 80" does, for a good reason: it's in TCP and others. This article is completely redundant and it is the wrong topic to focus on. The comments about conformance to port 80 not being required are wrong and original research. We don't need a "port 25" duplicate of SMTP, "port 21" for FTP, etc. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-02 22:16Z
  • Delete. Agree with above. --Daveb 02:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong redirect per Quarl and Twp. Let's save some bytes. -- Perfecto 02:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. This will help people lookig for port 80, and avoids duplicating efforts. --vidarlo 10:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete due to redundancy, or Rename to TCP port 80. Given that there are 65536 TCP ports and 65536 UDP ports, I'm more in favor of deletion; there's no point in creating stubs for the thousands of unused ports, or repeating info present in TCP and UDP port numbers and off-site [1][2][3] —mjb 05:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. OCNative 07:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to HTTP or move to TCP port 80. To get around firewall rules, TCP port 80 is commonly used for non-HTTP traffic and traffic that is only wrapped in HTTP. Just mentioning that HTTP uses port 80 is not enough. However, I agree that in its current form the article is badly focused and lacks any structure. Aapo Laitinen 16:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.