- 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. Sources provided in the discussion counter the nomination sufficiently. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 01:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Flood search routing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I could not establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn ( talk) 07:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me that the concern about notability is well-founded. A simple Google or Google Books search finds sources that discuss this technique. -- Srleffler ( talk) 03:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Discussed widely in reliable sources, so clearly notable. See, for example: [1] [2] [3] [4] Also see National Telecommunication Information Administration Telecommunications: Glossary of Telecommunications Terms (1997). JulesH ( talk) 22:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (state the obvious) @ 19:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 03:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Satisfies GNG. Plenty of coverage in GBooks. James500 ( talk) 17:51, 29 August 2014 (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.
- 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. Sources provided in the discussion counter the nomination sufficiently. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 01:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Flood search routing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I could not establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn ( talk) 07:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me that the concern about notability is well-founded. A simple Google or Google Books search finds sources that discuss this technique. -- Srleffler ( talk) 03:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Discussed widely in reliable sources, so clearly notable. See, for example: [1] [2] [3] [4] Also see National Telecommunication Information Administration Telecommunications: Glossary of Telecommunications Terms (1997). JulesH ( talk) 22:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (state the obvious) @ 19:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 03:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Satisfies GNG. Plenty of coverage in GBooks. James500 ( talk) 17:51, 29 August 2014 (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.