Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled Delay


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Controlled Delay

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article on proposed programming technique not yet in use and therefore non-notable. The last sentence is the give-away. (And that the article on it has, a/c Google scholar, been cited so far by one person only  DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Article is not about a programming technique but about a new AQM algorithm. Article cited for it was published in ACM Queue and reprinted in CACM (which is peer reviewed), both extremely reliable sources for computing science and software engineering (and on the force of those two facts meets WP:NSOFT -- reliable sourcing, totally new technology means significant). The algorithm discussed has been implemented and is available for all to use and report upon (and has been picked up by early adopters). And I just came across a nice little remark that CoDel has been integrated into the Linux kernel mainline already, so if that isn't use I don't know what is... -- BenTels (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Extra comment: Aside from the above, the nominator has completely misread that last sentence. It doesn't say that CoDel is not in use (as in not implemented); it says that CoDel is in use and its behavior is being observed in actual use to see if it lives up to expectations. -- BenTels (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 16:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "not yet in use and therefore non-notable."
 * So that's a whole bunch of pruning needed to NASA then!


 * keep This is a solid technique and article about it. It appears encyclopedic. At least one author is well-known. The question reduces to "Does it meet WP:N?" There are sources. Some are SPS, some not. Even though some of these SPS author publications are going out through erudite channels like the ACM and MIT. So N now seems to reduce to, "Do we consider Jim Gettys to be a RS on this topic?"  I'd have to say yes, so keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I added two more reliable sources to the article (there are at least three now). These were not hard to find - you just need to search for "CoDel". --Kvng (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.