Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ping-ponging


 * 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 without prejudice. If I were to blank this article and paste in Andy Dingley's delete !vote it would make more sense then this article does. If someone wants to write a new article on this subject then be my guest. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ping-ponging

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is nothing short of gibberish. It is so over-loaded with numerous clean-up and warning tags that deletion is really the only solution unless a drastic and intelligible re-write is undertaken. The term appears to be a neologism at best, and the article is entirely unsourced. Agent 86 (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The article seems to be little more than a dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. No references, no relevant Google hits as far as I can see. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete per WP:Delete the junk. On a strict policy basis this is either a clear keep as a notable topic or a speedy deletion under WP:CSD for its lack of context. The topic is actually a good one, and far from a neologism (it's 25 years old, to my knowledge). Placed in this contradictory impasse though, WP:Delete the junk should be applied.


 * The topic incidentally refers to cellular communications, sometimes mesh networking in general. If a mobile station is on the border between two cells, the routing algorithm may see the best route to this station as being through either of the two possible routes, and the favoured choice is likely to vary intermittently according to minor variations in signal. Unless the routing algorithm is damped to take this into account, the selected route is likely to ping-pong back and forth between the two possibles, with no real advantage of one route over the other and wasting some effort at processing the handovers. Serious effort has been put into algorithms to avoid this problem - it's an issue with real money riding on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice - Notable topic, unsalvageable fragment. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per all other delete comments, Andy Dingley's comments provide a valuable contribution to this afd SatuSuro 09:49, 23 June 2011 (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.