Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Associativity-based routing Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Associativity-based_routing

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. This AfD did not generate a lot of discussion but the general consensus was to keep the article for the notability of the topic. Improvements have been made in the article and more improvements were suggested in the discussion and in templates at the article. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Associativity-based routing (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)

Highly-promotional article, and many of the most-useful bits of information are uncited. Some of the citations are to articles that seem to be about mobile networking in general, rather than this protocol in particular. AfD isn't cleanup, but... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This thing has plenty of hits on Google Scholar, and the papers by the inventor have tons of citations. I've done some preliminary cleanup and tried to cull most of the primary source stuff from the article, but more work definitely needs to be done. It's salvageable, though. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the research. I wasn't sure how to chase this down properly. I'll keep an eye out in the hopes that I can withdraw this before closing.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @SarekOfVulcan:I'm not fully convinced it should be a keep. I think we should also consider a merge to Wireless_ad_hoc_network. I haven't read enough of the article/sources or know enough about the topic. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Same here. Hopefully someone with less COI and more networking knowledge will drop in and opine. (Abr1993? Really? Nobody picked that up when the article was being created?) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This work is foundational for modern mesh networks such as Zigbee. A lot of the works cited in the article are by the inventor but these are referenced frequently by others and there are also adequate independent sources available. ~Kvng (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2018 (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.