Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingress cancellation


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Ingress cancellation

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A WP:DICTDEF that has been tagged for rewriting since 2009. Apart from some Cisco patents and marketing material, the term does not appear to be in use. Not sure if deletion, a soft-redirect to Wiktionary, or a redirect to some article on signal processing is best. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, meh, it passes WP:GNG and could be expanded per the available sources. I suspect that this type of filtering is also known by another name and may be better merged elsewhere or turned into a broader article on ingress noise. SailingInABathTub 🛁 00:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep — the term seems to be used enough to be considered notable. Popo Dameron  ⁠ talk  01:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Week keep or merge I have next to no understanding of this technical topic. However, a web search indicates that the topic has some coverage. Maybe it is best covered as a redirect to a section in another article, however I don't think that deletion is beneficial here. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:06, 16 April 2023 (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.