Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOBICAST


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Apparently the concerns about the quality of the article (hence the "rewrite" votes) have been addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

MOBICAST
Advertisement, near meaningless gibberish --Blackcap | talk 22:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject had been published in notable publication  ACM-Mobile Networks and Applications. --Hurricane111 23:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's certainly notable, it's just an ad. --Blackcap | talk 23:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1. I don't see how this article is an advertisement - it is just an explanation of a particular technology.  Please explain where is the advertisement in the article.
 * 2. As per What_Wikipedia_is_not, "Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable."  Therefore, even if it is an ad, the mere fact that it is published in a notable scientific publication (ACM) means that A) it has been gone through peer-review by experts in the area.  B) The information is third-party verifiable.  --Hurricane111 23:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding ad: "...satisfies a potentially dynamic set...," "...by explicitly addressing the temporal domain...mobicast is more general than geocast and makes it possible to save bandwidth and memory resources of the networks...." To me, this sounds like an ad, as it's talking about it's achievements in a way that shows it's superiority another item or competitor, Geocast.
 * The second point is that the article is extremely hard to read to the point of being gibberish or nonsense, and contains little, if any, useful information. I am not saying that it is not verifiable, nor that it has not been peer-reviewed. --Blackcap | talk 00:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Relisting from 14th. Two divergent participators needs a more thorough debate. -Splash talk 18:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. "A new paradigm"! Reads like a marketing brochure. Owen&times;  &#9742;  19:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Publication does not equate to notability, article explains nothing, and it's unlikely that we'll ever get more than 1 or 2 contributors.--inks 20:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The article does read like the output of a buzzphrase generator. But that is what we have &#123;&#123;cleanup-technical&#125;&#125; for.  Hurricane111 has provided a citation of a peer reviewed paper on the subject in a reputable journal, which a quick search reveals to be cited by other people. Keep and Rename to MobiCast. Uncle G 21:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Rewrite in English. As it stands it looks like just a bunch of pretty much gibberish technophrases slung together to look impressive. It entails the delivery of messages to large sets of nodes in a manner that satisfies a potentially dynamic set of spatiotemporal constraints., for example. What does that actually mean? I'm quite willing to be persuaded that it actually does mean something, but what? As Uncle G says, it also should be renamed. Tonywalton | Talk 22:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Rewrite it is notable but article badly needs contextualisation. Dlyons493 22:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per inks. / Peter Isotalo 23:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete so much gibberish jargon it's almost patent nonsense. Use of the word paradigm should be included in criteria for speedy deletion. WCFrancis 04:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL&mdash;Good idea! New proposed WP:CSD criterion A8: "Any article which uses the word paradigm or synergy." Owen&times;  &#9742;  15:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Rewrite It definitely seems notable1. But as written now it doesn't communicate anything at all. Justin Bacon 07:40, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.