Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Traffic Measurement and QoS Monitoring


 * 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. I will userfy the article for improvement upon request. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  21:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Internet Traffic Measurement and QoS Monitoring

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Essay-like WP:OR filled look at something that isn't easily understandable from the article. It reads more like a dissertation than an encyclopaedia entry. Ironholds (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have a useful stub at network monitoring and a rather curious stub at internet traffic that want expansion.  This article seems to have been created to serve as a redirect target for the deleted article Monitoring and Measurement in the Next Generation Technologies, a spammy article about some kind of consulting project of dubious notability that was deleted before (Articles for deletion/Monitoring and Measurement in the Next Generation Technologies).  It may constitute the re-creation of deleted content.  The only things that link here, besides deletion related transclusions, are the several links that were inserted into other articles into that deleted article.  Note also that the people behind that former article are linking to Wikipedia from their main page, essentially using this article as a free web host. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The entries "Network Monitoring" and "Internet Traffic" could be linked to the "Traffic Measurement and QoS Monitoring" article but the content of this one does not fit into any of them. MOMENT is a project like ETOMIC, MOME, etc that have their own entries in Wikipedia. The contents of the article "Traffic Measurement and QoS Monitoring" has been modified to fulfill WP style although it could be improved, but, if you think mentioning MOMENT is a reason to delete it, I will accept and let interested people in its development and achievements consult MOMENT web site directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvillarro (talk • contribs) 10:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep AfD is not for cleanup. The article provides adequate information to establish WP:N and provides links to WP:RS. This article is in need of copyediting and needs inline citations and a References section. These are editorial issues and are things that are typically corrected per the normal editing cycle and are not reasons to bring this article to AfD. This article is clearly under construction and the editor creating it is obviously trying to write good material that would be beneficial to Wikipedia. I think the prod and immediate AfD were premature and the nominator is not allowing time for this article to develop. Just because an earlier article did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines does not mean that a better written article about the same topic will not. In looking at the "webhost" link concern, I don't see that this article is being used as a webhost. In fact, the website the link above points to seems to host all it's own material and only provides an extra link to the Wikipedia article. This is no different from many other websites linking to Wikipedia articles as a source for additional community-written information. Tothwolf (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * AfD isn't for cleanup, though; cleanup is "well, article X has issues". In this case article X is one massive issue; we're not commenting on the validity of the topic, rather on the validity of this page. Thank you for your concerns about my AfD technique; I assume that since the user who created it has edited it 18 times since I first touched it, starting at this and ending where we are now, such concerns are unfounded. Ironholds (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BEFORE if a page can be improved through regular editing it should not be nominated for deletion. Here are two more examples of this (check the edit histories): HS-14 and Them Terribles. Tothwolf (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 05:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. So far as I can tell, this is effectively a recreation of the deleted article Monitoring and Measurement in the Next Generation Technologies. Rather than describing the general topic of IP traffic measurement, it's describing a specific project which we've already determined to be inappropriate here. Worse yet, it's not even factually correct. For instance, the introduction describes MOMENT as providing data from "MOME, LOBSTER, ETOMIC,DIMES, BART, RIPE, [and] GEANT2/Perfsonar", suggesting that these are all "projects [...] to deal with IP traffic measurement", when, in fact, many of them aren't: for instance, GEANT2 is a research network, RIPE is a network policy group, and BART is an application used for measuring point-to-point bandwidth. In short, while there might be an article to write at this title, this isn't it. (And, as Ihcoyc notes above, there are articles with much better titles which need expansion first, like network monitoring.) Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Zetawoof removed and reworded a key portion of his argument after Spasemunki left the "per Zetawoof" response below. Tothwolf (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Zetawoof's change was fairly minor, and doesn't affect my vote. I was already aware that jitter can be an SLA parameter, or at least is intended to be in next-gen network architectures.  Even if that one fact was correct, the majority of my objections still stand.  --Clay Collier (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. per Zetawoof.  Appears to be purely a description of the architecture of a particular project, rather than something of general interest.  No assertion of notability.  There are hundreds of research projects of this sort going on at universities and labs around the world- a proliferation of acronyms doesn't necessarily mean that this one is particularly important. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2009 (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.