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. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Efficient Mail Submission and Delivery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Internet protocol that just didn't make it, with an article only echoing the IESG note in its RFC that describes why it isn't suitable for the Internet. A GScholar search turns up a slew of documents, almost all written by M. Banan (the RFC's author) with practically only self-citations. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I tried searching Google scholar for papers that referred to this RFC and were not written by Banan [1] but did not turn up the substantial coverage in multiple sources needed to pass WP:GNG. Google books also failed to find any good sources. We don't, and shouldn't, cover all RFCs (let alone with separate articles) and I just don't see the case for notability for this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein. -- 101.119.14.175 (talk) 21:06, 26 October 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.