Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reflected-wave switching

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reflected-wave switching

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor whose rationale reads thus: "It's not notable and also wrong in a few areas, it doesn't link to other pages and the reference given - while may cover it - is a book! An old book!" On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst merge to Conventional PCI, which the sources I found discuss it in association with, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. IP's deletion rationale doesn't appear to have any validity. --Michig (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the multiple in-depth sources found by Michig. The article could certainly use improvement, but the sources are out there to build a better article. --Mark viking (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A 1993 book from a major educational publisher is one of the best sources possible, so I don't know why the fact that it is used merits exclamation marks. It's certainly far better than some random web page, which appears to be what the nominator (not Ultraexactzz) expects. Keep per that source and others found above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Just to clarify on procedure, Ultraexactzz didn't generate the nomination themselves; instead, they (as a courtesy) helped an IP editor complete the AfD registration process. This help is a standard thing and unless the helper says otherwise, they are understood to be neutral in the discussion. --Mark viking (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why I pointed out that the effective nominator was not Ultraexactzz. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2017 (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.