Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protocol-oblivious forwarding Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Protocol-oblivious_forwarding

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol-oblivious forwarding (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)

Appears to be a promotion for an obscure product by Huawei. Little evidence of notability in terms of 3rd party sources. Fails WP:GNG. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject and context of the article are unclear; if it is to be kept, it is in need of serious cleanup to be suitable for an average reader. A Google search turned up hardly any reliable third-party sources. The article fails WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP because it seems to be biased towards the subject and might have only been written as a promotion. If the technology is as notable as this source claims, more reliable third-party sources should turn up in huge future, but for now, the subject is not very notable. TCMemoire (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not for something you published at a conference one day. This may become a notable technique, but it isn't now. De Guerre (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Software-defined networking is currently a "hot area" of research, with various vendors proposing their wares. I think the main article is sufficient for now, because [most of] the vendor-level stuff hasn't gained sufficient independent coverage [with the exception of OpenFlow it seems.] Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:02, 20 December 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.