Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Switched 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. Tone 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switched communication network

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

without references since September 2006 Drift chambers (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:53, 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]

Keep. This is one of the most basic concepts in networking, and there is no reason to delete it. Nikola (talk) 14:12, 10 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]
Merge and redirect to Packet_switching. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:19, 14 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]

Redirect to packet switching, maybe. It's not at all clear what the author of the article meant, given the inherent ambiguity of switching in context. Mangoe (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Packet switching is just one of the kinds of switching that are used in switched networks. Nikola (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Rudd. No need to use AfD to improve articles or topic organization. --Kvng (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improvable. Possibly after working on it there will seem a better way of organizing the topic, but I don't see how debating it here will be productive. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 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.