Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuzzy routing

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 after a rewrite. Sandstein 08:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy routing[edit]

unsourced, stub-length, but I believe it may have potential, so should not be really suspect to speedy Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 21:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete, if it is sourced and improved, I will cross this out and replace it with keep. --S onicChao ^talk 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would like to see the article improved. It has potential to be expanded upon. Navou ^talk 22:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it hasn't reached even the stage of a draft, it's not yet encyclopedic. No objection to recreation when a draft is published. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete: There is an article to be written about fuzzy routing. This currently isn't it. Either rewrite from scratch, citing actual real-world research (such as [1], [2], [3], [4]), or delete the existing article if that isn't done by the end of this AfD process. -- The Anome 23:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would appear the article has been changed significantly since the AfD for this article was initiated. Speedy keep and close. Navou ^talk 05:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, much of it is still nonsense: for example, the "invented in 2006 by students" bit is clearly contradicted by the presence of much earlier papers on the topic. I've now replaced the previous content with a stub, and added cites to the links provided above. -- The Anome 10:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to keep, since I have now replaced the previous content with a properly referenced stub, and this is a legitimate subject that deserves a fuller treatment. -- The Anome 11:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has potential if references are properly used and if the article's expanded. --doco (☏) 11:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to Keep. More than enough has been added. (Thanks, The Anome) -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not much content, but it seems referenced and notable enough to hopefully be expanded from a stub. —ShadowHalo 05:37, 13 December 2006 (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.