Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicular Reactive Routing protocol

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicular Reactive Routing protocol

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

Non-notable academic topic. Article summarizes an academic paper that has only received five citations so far (per google scholar). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an article on the protocol or on the paper? A lack of citations to a paper might be evidence of non-notability for that paper, but it's not evidence that the protocol isn't being used or studied. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable question. I'm getting four hits on google scholar, two cited five times and two not cited at all. The two cited papers are by the same author. So I'd say both the paper and the topic are non-notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although perhaps should be covered somewhere, there are already articles using different acronyms for the same general topic. See Vehicular ad hoc network, Mobile ad hoc network, Intelligent vehicular ad-hoc network, Dedicated short-range communications, Communications, Air-interface, Long and Medium range (should be moved?), Intelligent transportation system and IEEE 802.11p (at least Wireless Access for the Vehicular Environment got redirected there). These might be consolidated into one or two neutral articles if someone ever has the time. We have done some trying to improve this quality, and this one does not seem to add any value, just promoting one student's project. W Nowicki (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All the articles above, are linked, as they are part of the same standard documents, specifically created by the IEEE to foster networking, routing and communication systems for vehicles, re: driver-less vehicles. The article you are wanting to delete describes the protocol for routing packets between each vehicle in the network. It's strong encyclopedic knowledge. There is a large number of Google Books to to help with Notability, and an substantial number of GHits. scope_creep talk 15:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment After reviewing the articles listed by W Nowicki I emphatically agree with scope_creep that all are notable and are either well-sourced or could become so with a bit of effort. However, the article I nominated for deletion (Vehicular Reactive Routing protocol) is not an IEEE standard and not cited sufficiently in the peer-reviewed literature. Rather, it's a proposed protocol that hasn't gained enough traction yet to (in my opinion) be notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all.--92.20.148.198 (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As pointed out by W Nowicki there seems to be a big mess here. I don't think that deleting is the best way to start cleaning it up. Other options should be considered WP:BEFORE deletion. ~KvnG 22:16, 28 September 2013 (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.