Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geocast

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. Consensus to keep, with acknowledgment that cleanup of the article is required. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geocast[edit]

[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)

"Geocast" is not a thing. It's a proposed idea, which has not been (and arguably could not be) implemented. The article, and the links to it from other pages, all appear to have been created by one person, and only reference a single very academic paper, which proposes it as a hypothetical neat idea. But it's a neat idea which was never fleshed out enough to be realizable. So I guess I'd place this at the intersection set of "not notable," "not verifiable," "patent nonsense," "neologism" and "original research." But it's definitely not a thing and the article (and all the links to it that were scattered around in other articles) are very misleading and use a lot of obfuscatory jargon, implying that it is a thing. This is very misleading, would lead the average reader to the misconclusion that there's a thing called "geocast" which exists in the world, and thus should not appear in an encyclopedia. Bill Woodcock (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they follow the same pattern... Same creator, interlinking internal references, only the one external reference which is a paper by the author of the pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An unimplemented idea can be notable, and if the references have gone through peer review, they probably establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I absolutely agree in principle, this was a single paper, twenty four years ago with one person's idea, which never sparked any follow-on, or discussion, or implementation, or commentary, until one person recently began plastering cookie-cutter reference to that one paper all over unrelated Wikipedia articles. So, if it was an idea that had been the genesis of work or discussion by others, absolutely, but it dropped without a ripple in 1997. And the bar for publishing academic papers is notoriously low. I'd probably be more sympathetic if the idea were implementable, but it's not. If it were, it would be valuable, but the same is true of perpetual motion, alchemy, cold fusion, etc., which is why I include WP:PN. Bill Woodcock (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject of quite a few academic papers, see Google scholar, and is discussed in multiple published books, some as recent as 2018. Seems to be a relatively established term/concept. The current state of the article is not to be taken into account when discussing deletion. It does pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Throast (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I pulled the trigger too quickly. You're right, that it appears to be a well-established term within the context of experimental vehicle-to-vehicle wireless networking, which I don't know anything about. All of the references to it were being jammed into Internet routing articles, where it's not applicable. So, maybe the only problem to be fixed is a clean-up of the article that clearly scopes it to vehicle-to-vehicle wireless networking, rather than "networking" writ large, and updates the citations? Bill Woodcock (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's the best solution. Throast (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Throast. The idea has seen some coverage in the books and papers. Article needs a little clean-up. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 18 July 2021 (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.