Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadcast communication network

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast communication network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Without references since September 2006 Drift chambers (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete: should be covered in
  Broadcasting (computing) as well. Given the explosion in wireless networks which are common examples of this, it would seem a relevant topic somewhere. These all need to be beefed up and it is not clear the way to divide into articles. W Nowicki (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Not all broadcast networks are bus networks. Broadcast networks can have various topologies. Broadcasting described in that article is used in broadcast and non-broadcast networks alike. Nikola (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is one of the most basic concepts in networking, and there is no reason to delete it. Nikola (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points. Not much harm in keeping it or the others co-nominated,

Fully connected network. It is not a matter of incorrect information or spam but just incompleteness (what stubs are intended for after all). My question is if the subtle but important distinctions that you refer to might be better discussed in a unified Network topology article for example? Another question is if a user searching for this concept would include the word "communication" in their search, or more likely look for, say broadcast computer network or for that matter broadcast network which describes the more historic concept that is less relevant to today's readers who may have heard stories of these networks from their grandparents (it also is blatantly USA-centric). W Nowicki (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

These are not topologies. A broadcast network could exist in a bus or star topology, for example. A switched network could be fully connected, but a fully-connected network does not have to be a switch network. Perhaps they could be merged under network taxonomy, though I see that that term is used very broadly? Nikola (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This can be merged somewhere, but that can be discussed on the talk page. —Ruud 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article appears to confuse two things,
  Stuartyeates (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Completely different things. These articles are about routing schemes in switched networks. It is possible to broadcast in a switched network, but it is not possible to switch in a broadcast network :)

  On the other hand, perhaps this level of confusion really means that the three articles should be merged. Any suggestions for the name? Nikola (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per
  WP:BEFORE C.5. There are numerous potential destinations for this material which should be discussed on the article's talk page before AfD. --Kvng (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Nomination gives no valid arguments. Failure to improve is not a reason for deletion. Only the inability to be improved is, and that does not seem to be the case. The specialists should do some work on defining the subject, and seeing if it should better be merged, but this isn't the place for it. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.