Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer network naming scheme

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 no consensus‎. Editors remain divided between keep, delete, and two different merge options after two relists and extensive discussion. It is possible that further discussion on a talk page may consolidate a case for a merge, but at this time I do not see any consensus emerging from this AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer network naming scheme[edit]

[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)

It's self-evident that people who have a bunch of computers and want to assign them names according to some sort of system do so, and that the systems are completely arbitrary, and that they are often inconsistently followed, and that people who aren't into naming systems either don't give them names or pick an arbitrary name each time if they have to. It's just not a subject, period, much less encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is poorly written as is, and shouldn't focus so much on personal naming schemes, but the topic is definitely encyclopedic. The Domain Name System is the most prominent naming scheme, and there are other minor examples, such as the GNU Name System, and naming systems for Content centric networking (e.g. [1]). There needs to be an article on the general topic. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there even a name for this class of things? If I search for this exact phrase, I get six GHits, which either make no sense or still seem to depend on this WP article. Also, it seems to me that GNU Name System is simply a GNUish implementation of DNS, and that CCN doesn't even align with the notion of naming at all. Even ignoring the need for WP:TNT, I'm not convinced that this article name is the proper stating point, or even that thee is a thing to write an article about. Mangoe (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Naming system" or "Network naming" might be a better title. I trimmed out most of the unsourced content and added a bit more content with a source that discusses network naming systems in general. There are definitely other sources that could be used (e.g. [2]). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per [3] and [4], or at the very least merge to Computer networks. Conyo14 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how those sources count toward verifiability, but not really towards notability. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources (RFCs etc.). Also Computer name, another clearly notable topic, redirects to this article. Coverage definitely could be improved in this area but deleting this is an unproductive WP:DEMOLISH. ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think that there is a subject here, and that this could be demonstrated from text books (although maybe the subject is actually hierarchical naming schemes). But WP:DEMOLISH surely can't apply to a 20 year old article. And RFCs are a primary source, and RFC 2100 is actually a joke - one of a series of 1 April RFCs. I considered whether the subject is really DNS, but no - naming schemes exist in other spaces and domains too. LDAP, for instance. But what makes the scheme notable is likely the addition of structure. Ad hoc naming is not an independently notable subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree that DEMOLISH does not apply here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs to be improved, but it definetly can be and is notable. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge I just don't see any evidence that this is a sufficiently notable subject for a stand-alone article. Mangoe's nomination puts it very well, the smattering of coverage that has been brought up here doesn't seem to me to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing how this is distinctly and coherently notable. It seems all of this info is better covered within its particular context at namespace? JoelleJay (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with a redirect to directory service, per Sirfurboy. JoelleJay (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Directory service. This one is tricky, but one thing I do believe is that the page should not be kept as it is. It has been around 20 years and it has not really settled on any independently notable subject. But a redirect to namespace, which seems like a good idea, is perhaps not the best as the namespaces that page primarily talks about are concerned with coding. Network naming gets talked about in various texts, but usually with respect to naming services and distributed systems. For instance Forouzan's Data Communication and Networking [5], page 910 in the fifth edition, discusses naming but in the context of the discussion of the DNS. The notable subject is the directory service, and the directory service page also links to namespace. Naming a computer is no more notable than naming anything else as a concept in itself, but naming computers in a manner that allows for distributed systems to uniquely identify nodes is indeed a notable subject, and there are plenty of papers and discussions of this. Indeed, whole books about it. So I think a redirect to Directory Service is suitable. There is, perhaps, a spinout page from Directory Services that is possible - an analysis of naming schemes (LDAP has a lot of literature on that) but I don't think this title is quite right for that, and as a result the content of this page is trying to be one thing and also another. If this were kept, I would want it kept on the basis it would be renamed and appropriately focussed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the directory service article when looking for existing articles. A redirect seems like a good idea. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more discussion about the merge/redirect target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment So I think we have a consensus on what the thing is that people in the discussion are thinking of, but there's still the problem that the name we have here is patently something someone made up one day. GBook hits are zero; JSTOR hits are zero; GHits, as I said above, are very few and seem likely to be the product of page scraping. Is there any reason not to delete a term that nobody is actually using? Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the name is the only problem, it would be preferable to rename instead of deleting. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Computer network isn't a bad idea, but I think merging into Hostname would be better. The idea being discussed in this (very short) page is how to come up with names for devices on a network, and Hostname already has some discussion of what kinds of names people use. Adam Sampson (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a better merge target suggestion than Directory service suggested by Sirfurboy above. ~Kvng (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Hostname isn't a bad suggestion, and we could redirect there, and, indeed, if anyone wanted to merge content to there that makes sense for what the page currently contains, but I think Directory service is the better location for the redirect because the title has scheme in it, and that scheme is specifically a scheme of naming applied to computer networks. That, to me, is clearly "naming and directory services", a textbook subject that would refer to LDAP, DNS, X.500 etc. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2024 (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.