Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TCP and UDP port numbers

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.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of TCP and UDP port numbers[edit]

This list is unmaintainable and could become massive (with nearly 50k ports around)! Computerjoe 's talk 19:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — At the very least the well-known ports section should be maintainable. — RJH (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a directory. "Could become massive"? I'd say it's pretty massive allready. Dr bab 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, though it could stand for perhaps a bit of reorganizing. I realize this list is unwieldy, but it's rather important information for anyone who does any serious network administration. Haikupoet 20:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is not an unmaintainable list, because there are a set number of ports (65,534, or 0xFFFF, to be precise), and the overwhelming majority of said ports have documentably assigned functions - and even then, those who have multiple functions have no more than a few. Granted, that's a lot of ports related stuff. List is not only well documentable, a number of RFCs document the living daylights out of this. Not only notable and verifiable, but we have our reliable sources. At the risk of WP:WAX, might I also mention that TCP/IP is documented here on Wikipedia, as well? Can't merge into TCP/IP as it's too big for that article, keep it separate. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
Additional comment - WP:NOT#INFO does not apply here as the information collected in this article is not indiscriminate. WP:NOT#DIR does not apply either; the topic at hand is not a list of loosely associated topics (in fact, quite the opposite - while the services are dissociated, the function is appropriately documented), and it is neither an equivalent to the white pages nor the yellow pages. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it is being successfully maintained right now. — brighterorange (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is being maintained and, while somewhat massive, it is a good resource on the topic. DStaal 13:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is very needed list for any novice in the area. It covers the subject matter even so has appearance of the list or directory. One needs to know a bit about this subject before voting on it fate. User:Abune 17:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being useful is not a defense. Computerjoe 's talk 18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs some work, and perhaps application of WP:NOTE on ports>1024. sendai 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A vital component of TCP/IP coverage, and while there are 50k possible ports, the number which actually have (or are likely to have) any function other than "sequentially assigned" are considerbly less. Using WP:NOTE for individual elements, other than those with no public exposure at all, would devalue the usefulness. Ace of Risk 19:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please. Useful reference, exactly the sort of thing you would expect Wikipedia to have. Much better than pokemons, porn starlets and star trek trivia. 195.172.215.82 12:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The standard ports are maintainable and the information is not indiscrimate. -Nv8200p talk 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful. Gigs 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article could not be held in better fashion. It, by it's nature will conflict with some of Wikipedia's standards. 00:50, 27 April 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.98.104 (talk • contribs)
Keep This is not indiscriminate information, and it seems maintainable. Gimmetrow 05:47, 28 April 2007 (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.