Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MobiCast (cellular networking)

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. ✗plicit 12:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MobiCast (cellular networking)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article doesn't meet WP:N. It was discussed as something that might hypothetically become a thing, twenty-two years ago, and then it did not become a thing. I don't believe it warrants an article. I am also nominating the following related page because it was discussed as something that might hypothetically become a thing, nineteen years ago, and then it did not become a thing: MobiCast (mobile ad-hoc networking) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I did WP:PRODs on both, which were deleted by Jim Grisham, but he declined to state a rationale in either case. Thus the AfD, so he can say why he thinks they need to remain articles. Bill Woodcock (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several other deprods by the same user at the same time look questionable. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: Can you identify a reason to delete? ~Kvng (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not WP:GNG. If anyone had thought any of this was notable, they'd have said so, and nobody has. BurritoTunnelMaintenance (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for at least a little while?) since the non-anonymous originating author recently just this month in an edit summary said `“Cleaning up vandalism, putting back on track for PROD.”` or Merge, perhaps into some other multicast-related article (e.g. with an explanation of why it failed to ‘become a thing’), since a strict application of WP:N seems to mainly apply to discrete articles.

A failed thing (noted as such, of course) can sometimes still have significant value, perhaps even more so as time passes.

Tangents

1. (Possible exception: if there’s an active ‘garbage collection’-type WikiProject that has access to deleted articles so the content, especially references which can be harder to find over time, can be repurposed… I actually think this might exist but can’t recall the name. It’s a shame that non-junk deleted content can’t just live on someplace such as a ‘talk’ page, even if the parent is deleted…)

2. P.S. Apologies for not listing a rationale - I’ll re-read the appropriate policies if I ever weigh in again in that sort of situation.

3. I don’t think this collapse template is ideal here, but I can’t use efn without a reflist or notelist and I have no idea how those would work on this sort of page (with the new threaded interface) so it seemed the least worse option.

Jim Grisham (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jim, that's me you're referring to, and as I've clearly stated, I think this is all non-notable nonsense that doesn't deserve an article. I was the person who flagged it for PROD, and you were the person who deleted the PROD. The question isn't whether you think this shouldn't be deleted, but why you think this shouldn't be deleted, and whether anyone else agrees with you that this shouldn't be deleted. If you have some rationale for why this shouldn't be deleted, please say so, we'd all be very happy to hear it. It's just that whatever seems to be obvious to you, doesn't appear to be obvious to any of the rest of us. Somebody wrote a paper a long time ago, about a thing that they thought might happen, which didn't, and nobody's ever mentioned it again since. What's the news here? I'm pretty sure it they also don't warrant mention in the actual multicast article, but if a one-liner about failed proposed uses would satisfy you, then we could move forward. Bill Woodcock (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reference here is the article that proposes Mobicast technology (not an independent source). I cannot find evidence that it went beyond that, in part made difficult because there are results for the term Mobicast that may refer to other technologies. For example, there is a 2009 Microsoft page for Mobicast that sounds similar to the abstract of the reference but which doesn't make a clear connection between the two. Also, it's just two vague paragraphs. Other things I found are an India-based blog that calls itself "Mobi Cast" and does not seem related to the software here, and a brick company in New Zealand. I also looked at the recent edits and they do not seem to me to have diminished the article, in the sense that no relevant sources were removed, that I can see. Lamona (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2022 (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.